DOD Shuttle Missions

[viper101]

I was just reading this in another thread:<br />"The only reason the foam causes damage is because the tiles are so fragile. The tiles are fragile because they have to be light weight. They have to be light weight because the orbiter is so big. The orbiter is so big because the Air Force demanded it (and the Air Force abandoned the shuttle after Challenger--can you say "irony"). "<br /><br />- Anyway - this got me thinking: When was the last time the Shuttle flew a Dept of Defense mission. I remember several in the 80's and possibly early 90s, but I cannot remember the last time they flew a classified mission. <br /><br />Anyone know?

 

[shuttle_rtf]

STS-33?...but that was November 1989, so might not have been the last one.<br /><br />Sticks in my mind when I was first getting into reading about Shuttle Missions as Sonny Carter was on Discovery for that DOD mission.<br /><br />Sonny was a former professional soccer player - and a few of my friends in the US knew him personally. He sadly died in a plane accident in 1991.

 

[redgryphon]

According to this page, STS-53, December 1992, was the last classified payload DOD mission. <br /><br />EDIT: confirmed by this NASA page.

 

[propforce]

So now NASA is again courting DoD for the support of a SDLV decision <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />. In return, NASA will shift all its science missions from Delta II to EELVs hence effectively kill off the Delta II. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[redgryphon]

Hey Prop. Nice to see you here again. I'm intrigued by this deal. Do you have a source, or is it water-cooler talk?

 

[propforce]

Hi Red,<br /><br />It's good to be back! I have the reference link at work, will post it tomorrow. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[john_316]

Well hopefully the CEV will be better equiped for heat shielding than the lightweight tiles found on the STS.<br /><br />Because that would suck to find the same tiles making it on the CEV and having the same problems.....<br /><br />

 

[viper101]

Thanks for the info everybody. Any ideas on why there were no further DOD Shuttle missions after '92?

 

[chmee]

Pretty much because the Titan IV rockets (which were developed after Challenger) came online to the provide heavy lift needed for the DOD payloads.<br /><br />Yes, I think it was pretty bad that the DOD abondoned the Shuttle after it had driven so many of the requirements of its design which had added immensely to the cost of it (huge payload bay, large wings for cross-range capability, etc)<br /><br />

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Wasn't the plan to launch Shuttles from both KSC and Vandenberg? (Until Challenger made the USAF think again?)<br /><br />How many Orbiters did NASA and the USAF plan to construct overall?

 

[Testing]

Yes there was a facility at Vandenburg but I believe it was mothballed before completion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[viper101]

I think I heard the Vandenberg launch site was poorly designed, something that could result in a dangerous buildup of hydrogen on the pad at launch - can't quite remember now - it's been like, 15 years at least.

 

[propforce]

Red,<br /><br />The source is from 6/28/05 of the Washington Aerospace Briefing.com. It's a subscription based service, so I'll copy & paste the info here below.<br />--------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />Drawing the Curtain on Delta 2?<br />Washington Aerospace Briefing<br />6/28/05<br /><br />NASA and the US Air Force have worked out a tentative agreement that could be the final nail in the coffin for the Delta 2, which has served as the civil space agency’s trusted workhorse launcher for more than a decade.<br /><br />According to industry sources, NASA Administrator Mike Griffin and Gen. Lance Lord, commander of Air Force Space Command, have agreed in principle that NASA will quit launching its science payloads on the venerable Delta 2 and switch to the smallest versions of the Delta IV and Atlas 5, which were developed under the Air Force Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program.<br /><br />By doing so, NASA would provide some relief for the Air Force, which the White House has saddled with the responsibility for keeping both Boeing and Lockheed Martin in the rocket-making business via the EELV program. In return, NASA would get the Air Force’s blessing for using a derivative of the space shuttle to launch the 100 or so tons of cargo that NASA assumes will be necessary for astronauts to make a return visit to the Moon by 2020.<br /><br />The White House space transportation policy released earlier this year directs NASA to give preference to an EELV-based solution to its heavy-lift launch needs, but Griffin’s position on the subject is clear: shuttle derived vehicle is the way to go. The policy directs NASA and the Air Force to make a joint recommendation on a heavy-lifter, and by agreeing to get off the Delta 2, Griffin may have found a way to get the Air Force to come around to his point of view on heavy lift.<br /><br />What remains to be seen is whether the two sides are in agreement on how to launch NASA’s crew explo <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[propforce]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Yes, the problem was Hydrogen from engine start being captured in the flame duct. Their design had a sort of tunnel. Plus there was concern over the close hills which would bounce acoustic energy back onto the vehicle <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Which would make a very interesting Delta IV launch out of VAFB <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[lunatio_gordin]

General Lance Lord? that's the most Awesome name i've Ever seen. In fact, that's going to be my new handle on my own MB <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" />

 

[ascan1984]

I was just wondering how did the security of DOD shuttle missions change from the non DOD missions.

 

[mikejz]

I would imagine (SG?) That most of those who work on the orbiter already have security clearances, so they can work on DoD stuff without too much hassle. <br /><br />Other than that, you would obviously restrict the release of information and pictures from the flight. I don't think it would be different than Delta or Atlas launch work, which both launch NRO missions along with open payloads.

 

[edkyle98]

Orbiter processing was relatively unchanged, except that <br />payload bay access was restricted out at the pad. <br />Payload processing before insertion into the orbiter <br />out at the pad was different. It was not performed in the <br />usual places by the usual people. See, for example <br />https://www.patrick.af.mil/heritage/Cape/cape2/cape2-9.htm<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[lampblack]

<font color="yellow">I was just wondering how did the security of DOD shuttle missions change from the non DOD missions.</font><br /><br />Just in terms of easily perceivable stuff: the launch times were embargoed until a very short period prior to take-off. Something about keeping the Russian trawlers off the coast guessing.<br /><br />And one notices on old videos of DOD missions that you don't hear ship-to-earth communications. You don't hear the traditional "go at throttle-up" exchange, for instance, during launch. And you don't hear the commander call "wheel stop" during landing. Instead, the entire thing is narrated in real-time by a PAO flack.<br /><br />Of course, this no doubt just barely scratches the surface.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[lampblack]

<font color="yellow">"And one notices on old videos of DOD missions that you don't hear ship-to-earth communications. You don't hear the traditional "go at throttle-up" exchange, for instance, during launch. And you don't hear the commander call "wheel stop" during landing. Instead, the entire thing is narrated in real-time by a PAO flack." <br /><br />Really? I did not know that but I never lisen to the PAO channels. </font><br /><br />Yep... it's actually sort of a personal pet peeve of mine. And yes, if you're thinking that maybe I don't get nearly enough sunshine and fresh air, you would be correct. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>