-
#320
by
Ben E
on 29 Jan, 2006 11:31
-
Yes, but with 4-5 missions per year, spread across three orbiters, that makes an average of only one or two missions by each vehicle per year - a turnaround rate of 6-12 months. So I disagree with you, Chris, as it's very different to the days of old. Think back to 1997 when Columbia and Atlantis both flew three times and Discovery twice - and that was a year in which Endeavour was on an OMDP, so it too was essentially running on a three-orbiter fleet.
The 1997 roster was:
STS-81 Atlantis Shuttle-Mir 12 January
STS-82 Discovery Hubble 11 February
STS-83 Columbia MSL-1 4 April
STS-84 Atlantis Shuttle-Mir 15 May
STS-94 Columbia MSL-1 Reflight 1 July
STS-85 Discovery CRISTA-SPAS-2 7 August
STS-86 Atlantis Shuttle-Mir 25 September
STS-87 Columbia USMP-4 19 November
You could probably argue that the MSL-1 reflight was easier because they were reprocessing the same payload, but casting that one aside, there would still have been seven missions achieved by only three orbiters. Why can't they do it again?
-
#321
by
psloss
on 29 Jan, 2006 12:06
-
Hi Ben,
That's a good question for the program folks to answer, particularly people who have been in the program for a while. From a pre-Challenger to now point of view, I would guess that you're pretty close to the sense I get -- which is that the orbiters and all the hardware get a lot more "tender loving care" now. Some of that has to be lessons learned during the program.
Another factor was noted by the the CAIB, which is that even given the large shuttle workforce, it was trimmed a lot during the Goldin years in the 90s. I don't believe that 3-shifts, 7-days a week is standard practice anymore at KSC -- hopefully someone here can say for certain.
Your point though about 1997 is taken, though; I would also point to the early ISS assembly sequence that occured in 2000-2001 after a very slow period between the Zarya and Zvezda module launches. There, you had an eight flight sequence beginning with ISS 2A.2B in September 2000 (STS-106) through ISS 7A.1 in August 2001 (STS-105) -- also with three orbiters.
It's pure speculation on my part, but I think a period like that is possible again, given some momentum from a series of clean, successful missions -- there's a similar "assembly heavy" sequence of missions ahead right now. I wouldn't expect it to become a standard practice or expectation again, though.
Philip Sloss
-
#322
by
psloss
on 29 Jan, 2006 12:15
-
Ben E - 28/1/2006 7:02 PM
As far as I'm aware, Discovery will fly STS-121 in May 2006 and her next flight will be STS-119 in May 2007. The reason, I believe, is that she is being outfitted to support the new, long-duration power system that utilises the ISS solar arrays. Hence Atlantis and Endeavour will alternately fly the other missions (STS-115 through 118).
No more Orbiter Maintenance Down Periods, though, so after STS-119 the orbiters will pretty much fly in sequence, with Atlantis retiring in 2008 and Discovery and Endeavour flying until the very end.
Another quickie point: Discovery is slightly heavier than Atlantis and Endeavour, so it "couldn't" fly the 12A/STS-115 or 13A/STS-117 flights, anyway. The P3/P4 and S3/S4 trusses have a rotating joint that makes them heavier than the other trusses with solar array wings (P6 and S6, the former already on-orbit).
("Couldn't" in quotes, because I'm confident that if they needed to use Discovery for the rotary joint trusses, they could make it happen; there are better options, though.)
Philip Sloss
-
#323
by
Ben E
on 29 Jan, 2006 12:29
-
Philip,
Yes, Discovery hasn't really ferried much 'heavy' stuff up at all so far. I was just looking at the ISS assembly sequence so far and most of the 'heavy' stuff - solar arrays, Destiny, Unity, Quest and truss segments - have been on Atlantis or Endeavour.
Maybe, as with fashion, Discovery is the 'new' Columbia = the heavy old bird that no-one wants to use. I hope not, though.
STS-96 - Spacehab
STS-92 - Z-1 truss (only a fairly-light segment though)
STS-102 - MPLM
STS-105 - MPLM
STS-114 - MPLM
STS-121 - MPLM
I see what you mean. Nothing too huge or heavy so far for Discovery.
-
#324
by
Chris Bergin
on 29 Jan, 2006 12:32
-
Two orbiters, because Discovery is out of action for a year with the SSPTS mod.
Of course it's not the same as 1997, but taking into account two orbiters completing this cycle, in a RTF cycle, mitigating circumstances level out here. That's my point.
STS-115 – Atlantis – July 1
STS-116 – Endeavour – October 1
STS-117 – Atlantis – December 7
2007
STS-118 – Endeavour – March 15
-
#325
by
Ben E
on 29 Jan, 2006 13:44
-
Thanks, Chris.
Just out of curiosity, and slightly off at another tangent, do you (or Philip) know why the STS-116 'core' crew has been increased from an original size of four in pre-107 days to a current crew of six?
Original 'core' crew:
Terry Wilcutt, Commander
Bill Oefelein, Pilot
Bob Curbeam, Mission Specialist
Christer Fuglesang, Mission Specialist
Current 'core' crew:
Mark Polansky, Commander
Bill Oefelein, Pilot
Bob Curbeam, Mission Specialist
Christer Fuglesang, Mission Specialist
Joan Higginbotham, Mission Specialist
Nick Patrick, Mission Specialist
There doesn't appear to be a 'different' payload that might necessitate the extra crew members - it's still listed as the P-5 spacer and the Spacehab cargo module - and, as far as I'm aware, there are no more EVAs added which might require an extra two-person EVA team. What will the two extra crew members be doing?
Any ideas?
-
#326
by
FransonUK
on 29 Jan, 2006 15:23
-
There's a question. How is it determined how many crew go on a flight? What's the minimum, what's the maximum?
-
#327
by
mkirk
on 29 Jan, 2006 16:53
-
FransonUK - 29/1/2006 10:23 AM
There's a question. How is it determined how many crew go on a flight? What's the minimum, what's the maximum?
CURRENT flight rules specify the minimum shuttle crew as 4 and the nominal maximum as 7. For contingency rescue missions you would have a total of 11 crew onboard for re-entry (4 going up plus the 7 rescued crew members). For the shuttles first four test flights only 2 crew members were on board.
Mark
-
#328
by
Chris Bergin
on 29 Jan, 2006 17:02
-
How would they configure a crew of 11 on the flight and middeck? Apparently being strapped in not needed for re-entry? I say that was there's a story going around about John Young having to tell off one of the astronaunts on an early flight standing up on the flight deck during re-entry with a video camera?
-
#329
by
mkirk
on 29 Jan, 2006 17:06
-
Chris Bergin - 29/1/2006 12:02 PM
How would they configure a crew of 11 on the flight and middeck? Apparently being strapped in not needed for re-entry? I say that was there's a story going around about John Young having to tell off one of the astronaunts on an early flight standing up on the flight deck during re-entry with a video camera?
Hey Chris-
The extra crew members who don't get the traditional seats will use a recumbent seat mounted to the floor with their feet in the forward lockers. I'll try and dig out one of the NASA photos of this and post here.
As far as standing I believe Story was the first culprit on STS-6.
Mark
-
#330
by
Chris Bergin
on 29 Jan, 2006 17:12
-
Excellent, thanks Mark. I hear one should not wish to get on the wrong side of Capt. Young!
-
#331
by
braddock
on 30 Jan, 2006 00:55
-
mkirk - 29/1/2006 1:06 PM
As far as standing I believe Story was the first culprit on STS-6.
Apparently correct. He stood throughout reentry on STS-6 to prove that it could be done in an emergency (at least that was his excuse).
I found an account at:
http://www.spacestory.com/flyingdr.htm , quoted below:
During re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere, Dr. Musgrave stood up in Challenger's cabin, an action usually prohibited by standard operating procedure. The question came up at the press conference, and Weitz said, "Sure, Story did it on the spur of the moment, but we all knew what he was doing and nobody's quarreled with him -- at least until now."
Dr. Musgrave didn't comment at the press conference, but now he explained, "I was conducting my own experiment. The whole flight had been so totally exhilarating and I was on such a high that I decided to stand throughout re-entry. It's my nature to press and push, to go beyond what's expected. I had my Hasselblad camera and I was taking some photos. Also, I wanted to prove that you can stand while going from zero gravity back into gravity. That's important if an astronaut ever has to leave the top deck and go below to throw a switch or circuit breaker. I wanted to show that the cardiovascular system doesn't have any problem going back into gravity and that you don't have to be strapped down.
"My standing was smooth and steady, and it shows how the STS system is maturing. We all had total confidence. Standing up throughout re-entry, instead of being strapped down, was the perfect end to a perfect trip. I was having fun, as always.
Musgrave is a fascinating person; I've had the opportunity to meet him a couple times. A few years ago I even had the unlikely privilege of helping Story change a tire in the middle of the Mojave...I remember he kept calling the tire iron the "actuator".
-
#332
by
Ben E
on 30 Jan, 2006 12:16
-
Re numbers of astronauts on Shuttle crews, perhaps Philip or nethegauner could help on this.
I know that crews need at least CDR, PLT, MS1 and MS2. After that, it's a big grey area, except that missions requiring above three EVAs do generally have four EVA Mission Specialists. Before the installation of Canadarm2, most ISS assembly missions (carrying major components) required an additional Mission Specialist to operate the RMS (Currie on 2A, Wakata on 3A, Garneau on 4A, Ivins on 5A, Kavandi on 7A, Ochoa on 8A, Magnus on 9A). What now confuses me is that many upcoming missions to install truss segments have four EVA Mission Specialists, but no dedicated RMS operator.
STS-115 Tanner, Burbank, MacLean, Stefanyshyn-Piper (working in two alternating pairs)
STS-116 Curbeam, Fuglesang, Higginbotham, Patrick (working in two alternating pairs)
STS-117 Reilly, Mastracchio, Forrester, Swanson (working in two alternating pairs)
Do they no longer need RMS operators - is it now exclusively done by Canadarm2 and, hence, by an ISS expedition crew member?
Interesting also that some missions with similar payloads had different numbers of astronauts. ATLAS-1 back in 1992 had a crew of seven, including two Payload Specialists, whereas ATLAS-2 and ATLAS-3 had five and six astronauts, respectively. Moreover, the last two ATLAS missions didn't have Payload Specialists. Why?
Similarly, Shuttle-Mir missions had different crew numbers. Leaving aside the NASA astronauts going up and down for long-duration stays, 'core' SMM crews were as follows:
SMM-1 Gibson, Precourt, Baker, Harbaugh, Dunbar (5)
SMM-2 Cameron, Halsell, Hadfield, Ross, McArthur (5)
SMM-3 Chilton, Searfoss, Sega, Clifford, Godwin (5)
SMM-4 Readdy, Wilcutt, Apt, Akers, Walz (5)
SMM-5 Baker, Jett, Wisoff, Grunsfeld, Ivins (5)
...but then...
SMM-6 Precourt, Collins, Clervoy, Noriega, Lu, Kondakova (6)
SMM-7 Wetherbee, Bloomfield, Titov, Parazynski, Chretien, Lawrence (6)
SMM-8 Wilcutt, Edwards, Reilly, Anderson, Dunbar, Sharipov (6)
SMM-9 Precourt, Gorie, Chang-Diaz, Lawrence, Kavandi, Ryumin (6)
Why did the last four SMMs require an extra crew member? All involved dockings and crew/payload transfers and all carried more-or-less the same amount of consumables in similar-sized double Spacehabs. In fact, SMM-9 had a SMALLER Spacehab (hence less cargo to be moved to and from Mir), yet still required the larger crew size?
Is it more to do with office and international politics (ie getting Ryumin a seat) than how many astronauts are officially 'needed'?
-
#333
by
psloss
on 30 Jan, 2006 23:54
-
Hi Ben,
Regarding shuttle RMS operations, particular now, that I seem to recall that the PLT has flown the arm (and perhaps both arms) on recent ISS missions. Also, the boom currently is in the way while the shuttle is docked, so the shuttle arm has to hold it in a safe position after handoff from the SSRMS.
Not sure about the other questions, though Ryumin's seat on STS-91 did seem a little less, uh, technical. There may have also been a dynamic going on (at the time of the last couple of Mir flights) with the Russians wanting to prolong Mir's life while the U.S. wanted to focus more on getting the ISS started. Given the intention for Mir to be de-orbited, internal/long-term logistics might not have been such a high priority in the last two American increments.
Philip Sloss
-
#334
by
Ender0319
on 31 Jan, 2006 00:59
-
On STS-114, the PLT (James Kelly aka Vegas) was a RMS operator (both SRMS and SSRMS) but was not the prime operator for either RMS. Wendy Lawrence was prime for the SSRMS and Andy Thomas was prime for the SRMS. Charlie Camarda performed SRMS duties as well.
On the upcoming STS-121 mission, most of the SRMS activities will be performed by Lisa Nowak and Stephanie Wilson. They will also be peforming SSRMS activities and neither is the CDR or PLT.
A lot of the RMS assignments defy rhyme and reason and are mostly due to crew resources and limitations. Things sure will become more interesting now that the OBSS (Orbiter Boom Sensor System) is the primary "tool" for performing inspections on-orbit.
-
#335
by
Jamie Young
on 31 Jan, 2006 01:54
-
Stupid question from me time.
The Shuttle has really shown the robotic arms work well and are an invaluable tool on the Shuttle and ISS. Could they eventually become pre-programmed and controlled from Earth, maybe?
I know we won't see this on the Orbiters, but would it have been possible to eventually take man out of the loop, with a Buran style unmanned flight and automated robotic arms, for say a HSM.
Please understand this is just theory, it won't happen with four years of STS remaining.
-
#336
by
psloss
on 31 Jan, 2006 02:18
-
I stand (or sit) corrected.
Thanks for the information,
Philip Sloss
-
#337
by
nacnud
on 31 Jan, 2006 08:32
-
Here is a picture of the
STS-300 mid deck seating, from wikipedia
-
#338
by
nacnud
on 31 Jan, 2006 08:46
-
As of June last year the station arm was qualified to be controlled from the ground,
linkAllard Beutel
Headquarters, Washington
(Phone: 202/358-4769)
James Hartsfield
Johnson Space Center, Houston
(Phone: 281/483-5111)
| June 3, 2005 |
STATUS REPORT: SS05-027
|
International Space Station Status Report: SS05-027
A new capability is being added to the operation ofthe International Space Station. A final round of tests to commissionremote control of the Station's Canadarm2 robotic arm from the groundwas completed this week.
The 60-foot arm was maneuvered byground control today to move in, latch onto a fixture on the exteriorof the Station, release and move back out. The tests were the secondand most complex remote control operations of the arm performed fromthe ground. The first set of tests completed earlier this year involvedonly basic movements. Completion of these two phases of commissioningwill qualify the ground control capability to be considered for useduring future Station operations.
During the tests, the arm wascontrolled by the robotics officer in the Space Station Flight ControlRoom of Mission Control. Aboard the Station, Flight Engineer and NASAStation Science Officer John Phillips monitored the activity. Normally,the arm is controlled by the Station crew using a robotics workstationin the Destiny Laboratory.
-
#339
by
Hotol
on 31 Jan, 2006 10:25
-
Very interesting, but I can't picture how that would look in the mid deck. I didn't think there was that much room?
