(1E) STS 122 Post Launch Mission thread

[erioladastra]

"Damn, all this cloak and dagger stuff leaves everyone speculating (mostly incorrectly I guess) what's wrong Hans. I suppose it must be worse than a cold then. "<br /><br />it is not cloak and dagger - just common respect for medical privacy. Bottom line, it is really none of your business.

 

[SpaceKiwi]

Perhaps he had a dodgy curry before he left Earth ... that doesn't even bear thinking about! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>

 

[bobblebob]

Maybe in time we will find out (these things do have a habit of coming out eventually) and if Hans wants to talk about it i cant see why they wouldnt let him. Interesting thing is didnt one of the crew members feel abit sick after landing and missed the conference? Think they gave information out about her medical condition, but maybe she didnt mind it being discussed<br /><br />I want to know whats happened to him on both a mission level and on a person level to make sure he is ok. But as much as i want to know i dont expect to find out anytime soon. Just because they crew are in the public eye doesnt mean we have a right to know everything<br /><br />Just listened to the conference which i thought was ridiculous some of the questions the media were asking.<br />Of course they will make some illness up tho

 

[SpaceKiwi]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Just because they crew are in the public eye doesnt mean we have a right to know everything.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />You're right, of course. However, the opposing view to that might be that Missions are conducted with an astounding level of public access. Traditionally NASA has (to their credit) been prepared to show and share almost everything, be it good or bad.<br /><br />You might also make the argument that the 'public figure' nature that Hans now 'enjoys' might preclude the traditional confidentiality that doctor and patient usually enjoys. Just ask Brittney, etc.<br /><br />I should state that I am only curious about his condition, and have no burning desire to know should it never come to light what has knocked Hans back. I'm just playing devil's advocate. Unless it is something very serious or extremely embarrassing, I would expect Hans to approve it being made known anyway.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>

 

[bobblebob]

"However, the opposing view to that might be that Missions are conducted with an astounding level of public access. Traditionally NASA has (to their credit) been prepared to show and share almost everything, be it good or bad"<br /><br />True, but i think the difference here is this issue is on a personal level related to 1 crew member, rather than the health of the shuttle/ISS/mission which is more broad.<br /><br />We do have a great level of detail regarding missions. Nasa release alot of information and stream the mission 24/7. Like you say, they always are willing to share information at the MMT briefing's so when they hold back - like today - it surprises people a little

 

[pberrett]

Erioadastra stated<br /><br /><br />"I do not know whether this is accurate reporting or not. " <br /><br />it is accurate. <br />"<br />No offense Erioladastra but I don't recall Shannon stating that during the Press Conference. Nasa were quite prickly about the issue of not revealing who was sick. This is why I thought the journalist might be taking some liberties in stating that Hans was sick. <br /><br />I stand to be corrected however.<br /><br />cheers Peter

 

[bobblebob]

I thought the fact it was Hans who has been replaced on EVA made it pretty obvious it was him with the medical condition

 

[pberrett]

[Post deleted by author in interest of good taste and maintaining friendly relations on this board.]<br /> <br />cheers Peter <br />

 

[MeteorWayne]

That seems like a pointless and unsupportable allegation.<br />As in unsubstantiated, and for you to suggest it is insipid.<br /><br />It is far more likely that one of the astronauts (Hans) has had the common problem adjsuting to microgravity.<br /><br />IIRC, about 25 or 30% of them require an adjustment period of some kind (about a day). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[pberrett]

[Post deleted by author in interest of good taste and maintaining friendly relations on this board.]<br /><br />It seems I upset my fellow board members with my post so in the interests of preventing a flame war I have deleted my posts on this subject. My apologies again to those offended.<br /><br />Regards Peter<br />

 

[billslugg]

You complain about an info blackout because it leads to idle speculation yet you are the one doing the speculation?<br />You have posited alcohol and you have speculated it might be a heart attack. The alcohol stories have been completely debunked, and your heart attack theory is the rankest of speculation. I see a difficult future for you around here. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[holmec]

IMO let the guy/gal/person be sick in peace. We've waited this long for Columbus, we can wait one more day. <br /><br />“By prevailing over all obstacles and distractions, one may unfailingly arrive at his chosen goal or destination.” Christopher Columbus <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[earth_bound_misfit]

"Bottom line, it is really none of your business."<br /><br />I must've hit a nerve. Sorry.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------- </p><p>Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?</p><p>Go here to see how: <strong>SDC Eye saver </strong>  </p> </div>

 

[ozspace]

The crew are an essential part of the mission success and just like any other system, any problem or issue that may arise that could impact the safety or success of the mission needs to be reported. Just like any other system failure, the possible impacts and reasons they why came about should be explored.<br />They are human and do deserve privacy but being 'space sick' inside the orbiter/ISS is a whole different matter to vomiting or worse on an EVA, that could be fatal. So, a high level of interest is warranted and NASA seems to be handling it about right. The media can play a positive role in mission success by asking probing questions, some go too far but that is the price of an open media.<br /><br />My 2 cents anyway...Peter

 

[pberrett]

Assuming somebody did develop a serious illness that required urgent attention on earth, how quickly can the shuttle or a Soyuz return to Earth from the Space Station? I assume that the shuttle would be the gentler option. From past missions I recall that it takes a couple of days to get home but can this be made faster in an emergency?<br /><br />Regards Peter

 

[ozspace]

I am sure that they continously calculate emegency ISS evacuation and shuttle deorbit plans. I would guess that they could be on the ground (somewhere) within 4-6 hours. This is just my own thoughts and others here will know better...

 

[billslugg]

I suppose they could be down within a few hours but where? They are in an orbital plane with the Earth rotating slowly below. They can glide sideways about 800 miles. Plus, you have to get approval, program the computers, stow the loose objects. I think the public would be incensed if we could not get them down in less than a couple hours. I would be upset if we could not come in to a desert airstrip under 6 hours from an arbitrary event. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[Testing]

This would be one of the people you would not wish to offend. General information. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[pberrett]

Thanks Testing<br /><br />I'll be a bit more careful about what I post. I am comparitively new around here and I just want to fit in.<br /><br />Regards Peter<br />

 

[ozspace]

According to Wikipedia:<br />Emergency landing sites for the Orbiter include<br /><br /> * Lajes (Portugal),<br /> * Beja (Portugal),<br /> * Keflavík (Iceland),<br /> * Shannon International Airport (Ireland),<br /> * RAF Fairford (United Kingdom),<br /> * Köln Bonn Airport (Germany),<br /> * Airport Manching near Munich (Germany),<br /> * Ankara (Turkey),<br /> * Banjul (Gambia),<br /> * Riyadh (Saudi Arabia),<br /> * Edwards Air Force Base, California (United States),<br /> * Diego Garcia (British Indian Ocean Territory),<br /> * Gander International Airport, Gander, Newfoundland (Canada),<br /> * Montreal/Mirabel International Airport, Mirabel (near Montreal), Quebec (Canada),<br /> * Royal Australian Air Force Base Amberley, near Brisbane, Australia<br /> * White Sands Missile Range, White Sands, New Mexico (United States)<br /> * Bangor International Airport, Bangor, Maine (United States)<br /> * Orlando International Airport, Orlando, Florida (United States)<br /> * Stewart International Airport,Newburgh, New York (United States)<br />

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Assuming somebody did develop a serious illness that required urgent attention on earth, how quickly can the shuttle or a Soyuz return to Earth from the Space Station?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Here's a different question. How serious does it have to be to bring down a ship? ISS is not small. I can only imagine that a cold or flu could be manageable in the station. Maybe a little more water or resources would be used, but can't they handle some common illness? <br /><br />IOW Up to what level of illness is the ISS equiped to handle? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[usn_skwerl]

I thought NAS Oceana, VA or Dover AFB, DE was included in the list of emergency fields. hmm, interesting... <br /><br />Edit: Belay my last, Oceana and Dover are Launch Abort Sites. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[pberrett]

From <br /><br />http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/facility/sts-els.htm<br /><br />SPACE SHUTTLE EMERGENCY LANDING SITES1. END OF MISSION SITES: KEY:<br /> Edwards AFB, CA (1) (1) DOD Site<br /> Kennedy Space Center, FL (2) Underburn for KSC <br /> White Sands Space Harbor, NM (1) (3) Underburn for EAFB <br />2. AUGMENTED LANDING SITES: (4) High inclination only<br /> Base Aerienne, Ben Guerir, Morocco (5) Low inclination only <br /> Edwards AFB, CA (1) (6) Mid inclination only <br /> Kennedy Space Center, FL<br /> Moron, AB, Spain (1)<br /> White Sands Space Harbor, New Mexico (1)<br /> Yundum Airport, Banjul, The Gambia (5)<br /> Zaragoza AB, Spain (1), (4) <br />3. EMERGENCY LANDING SITES: 3a. AUGMENTED EMERGENCY LANDING SITES<br /> Amberley, Australia Anderson AFB, Guam (1) <br /> Amilear Cabral, Cape Berde Hickam AFB, HI <br /> Arlanda, Sweden 3b. LAUNCH ABORT SITES <br /> Darwin, Australia Myrtle Beach, SC (4)<br /> Dyess AFB, TX (1) MCAS Cherry Point, NC (1),(4) <br /> Ellsworth AFB, SD (1),(3) NAS Oceana, Virginia Beach, VA (1),(4)<br /> Esenboga, Turkey Dover AFB, DE (1),(4) <br /> Gran Canaria (Las Palmas), Canary Islands Otis ANGB, MA (1),(4) <br /> Grant County (Moses Lake), WA (3) Pease ANGB, NH (1),(4) <br /> Hao, French Polynesia NAS Bermuda (1),(5),(6) <br /> Hoedspruit, South Africa<br /> King Khalid, Saudi Arabia<br /> Kinshasa, Zaire <br /> Koln/ Bonn, Germany<br /> Lajes Field, Azores (1),(6) <br /> Lincoln Municipal, NE (3)<br /> Mountain Home AFB, ID (1), (3)<br /> Nassau, Bahamas (2)<br /> NSA Souda Bay, Crete (1),(6) <br /> NSF Diego Garcia, Chagos Archipelago, Indian Ocean (1) <br /> Orlando IAP, FL<br /> RAF Fairford, United Kingdom (1),(4) <br /> Roberts International (Monrovia), Liberia<br /> Tamanrassett, Algeria<br />Regards Peter

 

[ozspace]

It would seem that the crew have their own software continuosly updating so they can deorbit themselves in an emergency and without contact with the ground (i.e. if telemetry & communication is lost)<br />http://www.spaceref.com/shuttle/computer/spoc/Deorbit.html

 

[superluminal]

Thanks everyone for the good information.<br /><br />It's always a great day to fly.<br />I do love football but This! (NASA TV) <br /><br />http://www.space.com/spaceshuttle/<br /> <br />is the real Super-bowl game.<br /><br />I'm tuned in to watch the bestest show above Earth.<br /><br />My sign reads ... SLOW !<br />Powder milk biscuits and real heroes at work ahead.<br /> <br />Caution ... . . .... <br /> <br /> Fly safe Atlantis and Crew.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><br /><strong><font size="3" color="#3366ff">Columbia and Challenger </font></strong></p><p><strong><font size="3" color="#3366ff">Starships of Heroes</font></strong></p> </div>