AORP, Saving Discovery if Safe Haven is called.

[jamie_young]

"The first ever Shuttle mission to fly with an official rating of "unacceptable risk", STS-121 will debut a concept that will allow Discovery to land herself in an STS-300 "Safe Haven" scenario.<br /><br />The Autonomous Orbiter Rapid Prototype (AORP) is a modification that allows the orbiter to complete the final landing procedures that currently require human intervention."<br /><br />http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/cat.asp?cid=4<br /><br />Very cool. Just ditching her into the pacific would be a disgrace.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">The Autonomous Orbiter Rapid Prototype (AORP) is a modification that allows the orbiter to complete the final landing procedures that currently require human intervention."</font>/i><br /><br />Boy, this is something that has been talked about at length on these boards. I am glad to see NASA has finally taken this step.<br /><br />Now I am waiting for someone to suggest all future Shuttle launches should be unmanned and just maintain crews at ISS who would board the Orbiter for various on-orbit operations.</i>

 

[crix]

I don't know why they don't take this a step further and let the Shuttle do fully automated, unmanned ferrying of supplies to the ISS as well. I know DART failed but don't we have this ability anyway? How hard can it be? Not to denigrate Russian ingenuity but they have been doing it for years. The hardware is certainly available and I don't think the software algorithms are particularly complex. Tieing them into the shuttles hardware would probably be the biggest challenge.

 

[CalliArcale]

DART was the only attempt in history (as far as I know) of a truly autonomous rendezvous. The Russians use a sort of monitored autonomous rendezvous. (It's not entirely autonomous, in other words, and they can and do hand pilot the spacecraft remotely.)<br /><br />It should be possible to make a system to dock the Orbiter the same way (by remote control). However, there are some things to consider. Firstly, the Orbiter is very massive. As bad as the Progress/Spektr collision was on Mir, an Orbiter/ISS collision could be much worse. So the system has to be very reliable. Secondly, the Space Shuttle is not highly efficient in terms of system mass to payload ratio. Even unmanned, you'll be carrying a lot of dead weight. Basically, it would be a compromise between developing an ideal large unmanned ferry craft and getting something flying quickly. I think it would probably be a good compromise, although the costs of launching the Space Shuttle would need to be factored in and carefully considered. I couldn't speculate accurately as to which way the cost/benefit analysis would go. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[j05h]

It'd still be cheaper to "clone" the Shuttle cargo bay and put the remaining ISS payloads on a fast-tracked HLV or uprate EELV.<br /><br />I think the automated landing is an interesting idea, though.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

That's what I suspect, but it comes down to a question of cost versus expedience. There are usually two major factors driving a project: cost and schedule. Schedule would probably have to get a heck of a lot more important to justify refitting the Shuttle for unmanned ops rather than building a completely new launcher. (Odds are, I suspect the powers that be would ditch the whole plan rather than do that; I don't think schedule will get important enough to overrule cost. But, one never knows.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[askold]

Putting the effort into a heavy lift launcher would have the benefit of moving the next generation technology forward. All this fiddling with the shuttle wastes money that should be spent on the new stuff.

 

[CalliArcale]

I wholeheartedly agree. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

Sorry Calli I don't! Getting askold to admit that ANY manned program is worthwhile is kind of like getting the Palestinians to admit that Israel should have an existance!<br /><br />If we were to abandon the shuttle now, we would have to use only the Soyuz for at least the next six years or so! Do you really think that congress and the American people that care about the manned program are going to go for that. Not on your life!<br /><br />The greatest boost that we have for our young people in schools in taking such subjects as science and engineering is the astronaut corps. Just go into any 5th grade school room and ask how many students want to be scientists alone, and how many want to be scientist/astronauts? You can answer that one as easily as I. <br /><br /> All askold wants is little robots running all over the solar system. I even asked him why do that if human beings are not to follow? No answer as yet!<br /><br />Yes, we who support both the shuttle and the ISS know of the faults of both systems as well as askold does. Perhaps even better in my case as I WAS actually in the aerospace industry itself. I also asked askold if he would still support the shuttle if NASA were to have to correct ALL foam problems so that he would feel that it is safe to launch the shuttle, even if it took another entire year to do so! So far no answer there either! Which tells me that he is really hopefull that if this happens then the shuttle will just be cancelled entirely anyway!<br /><br />Tell me when you think that going into space is ever going to be truly safe for human beings? How about never! Is it going to be worth the risk. Of course we both know that, but I get a decided impression that askold does not! <br /><br />Now, if he were to answer my simple queries, then perhaps I would be more than happy to admit that I was wrong about him. He DOES seem like a very intelligent and educated person. <br /><br />Besides I and most people that fully support the manned pro

 

[askold]

Gee, I didn’t know I had missed an essay assignment ….<br /><br />I do think that a manned program could be worthwhile but only if worthwhile goals and objectives were first established. What is the purpose of going back to the moon? To get more rocks? Is it likely that we’re going to discover something dramatically different about the moon we don’t already know?<br /><br />We certainly don’t need to rush off to the moon and then Mars. Look what all this rushing has gotten us so far – we have the 25-year-old shuttle that is performing worse now than it did 2 decades ago, at a cost of $7B a year. Then we have the CEV which looks a lot like Apollo. We don’t really know what we want to do beyond LEO so we just keep building manned vehicles hoping that a mission will be found for them. Dr. Griffin practically said this himself at the June 21 news conference. When asked what kind of science was going to be done with the CEV he answered that the problem with the ISS was that NASA built the thing then told scientists to find something to do with it, but it would be different with the new vehicle. It wasn’t clear to me what the difference will be.<br /><br />(Though I like the heavy lift rockets coming out of the new program.)<br /><br />Meanwhile, our science programs are steadily advancing. The probes we’re sending out now are light-years ahead of the missions in the 70’s – and they’re getting better all the time. Meanwhile, the manned program is stuck in the mud with no obvious way to get out. But, of course, it’s the science programs that are being cut.<br /><br />So, to get caught up on my unanswered questions: a manned program would be worthwhile if it had worthwhile goals; humans should follow the little robots when there’s a good reason for them to do so; as for correcting the foam problems – I’d be happy if the shuttle never flew again but if Griffin is bound and determined to fly it I’d rather it be as safe as possible. It’s bad enough we’re wasting all this mo

 

[frodo1008]

In the first place we have not even begum to explore the moon with Apollo. How many people have even landed on the dark side (actually not dark, just the side that can't be seen from the earth)? Exactly none. But before such exploration can be even started a permanent base must be established on the moon. That is what the ultimate goal of the CEV program is. To have a base from which we can truly explore the moon.<br /><br />It is not just to explore the moon, but also to start to exploit its very useful materials. The moon has plenty of oxygen when it is separated from the other materials that it is chemically combined with. Other materials such as iron, titanium, and many other very useful aerospace materials (although I must admit I don't expect them to find organic carbon composites, but then you can't always have everything now can you?) are also there. And it is far, far easier to get those materials off the moon than it is to bring them up from the earth, and therefore once the initial expense has been made it will be far cheaper than continuing indefinitely to bring such materials up from the earth!<br /><br />There is even a fair chance at water as frozen ice in the deeper craters at the poles. A place where we have not explored by either robotic or human means. We have used satellites and they do indicate the possibility of water.<br /><br />Besides is there anyplace else that is as near as the moon to go? A place that we certainly should be able to test out the equipment to go further out in the solar system in a relatively safe manner. After all, when a space ship is millions upon millions of miles away from the Earth there will be no Apollo 13 type of rescue in case something goes wrong!<br /><br />These are just a few of the reasons for going back to the moon next!<br /><br />Also rushing is not the reason the shuttle has the problems it does! Rushing has nothing to do with a congress that expected Cadillac features at Yugo prices!<br /><br />Also, I

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Sorry Calli I don't!<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Frodo, we were speaking in the context of heavily redesigning the Shuttle versus building something new from the ground up. Not in the context of cancelling the existing Shuttle. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

Well.... maybe you were, but askold certainly wasn't!

 

[georgeniebling]

While it seems (at least right now) like STS-121 will be able to return from orbit ....<br /><br />what if ...<br /><br />what if there was found to be problems preventing a safe return of STS-121? Safe Haven.<br /><br />but wouldn't a problem with STS-121 imply a higher probability of problems with STS-301 (the rescue flight)?<br /><br />and hence ... if STS-301 were to launch and have issue preventing a return .... there would be:<br /><br />2 ISS crew<br />7 STS-121 crew<br />4 STS-301 crew<br /><br />one Shuttle which is not readily usable?<br />one Soyuz on station<br /><br />one or two maybe in the "pipeline" in Russia?<br /><br />Thoughts?

 

[georgeniebling]

while this thread *did* have problems which were quite dissected ..... I'm bumping to re-open my questions ....<br /><br />While it seems (at least right now) like STS-121 will be able to return from orbit .... <br /><br />what if ... <br /><br />what if there was found to be problems preventing a safe return of STS-121? Safe Haven. <br /><br />but wouldn't a problem with STS-121 imply a higher probability of problems with STS-301 (the rescue flight)? <br /><br />and hence ... if STS-301 were to launch and have issue preventing a return .... there would be: <br /><br />2 ISS crew <br />7 STS-121 crew <br />4 STS-301 crew <br /><br />one Shuttle which is not readily usable? <br />one Soyuz on station <br /><br />one or two maybe in the "pipeline" in Russia? <br /><br />Thoughts?

 

[tomnackid]

One of the biggest reasons that the shuttle was not designed from the beginning to operate unmanned was that in the 70s and 80s the US had no space station. The shuttle was a launch vehicle, temporary space lab (those mid deck experiment bays were filled to capacity on every non DOD launch), and living quarters for crew needed for on orbit projects like Hubble. As many people have pointed out a multipurpose tool is never as efficient as a specialized one, but when a multipurpose tool is all you are offered you make the most of it. A 200% rise in consumer prices due to inflation during the shuttle development pretty much made sure that the shuttle would be the only game in town for a long time.

 

[askold]

I posed the very same question in my thread titled:<br /><br />" I don’t understand this “safe haven” concept."<br /><br />I still don't understand.