Shuttle orbiter reserves

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JonClarke

Guest
<p>The Orbiter possibly staying up for an extra day because of weather got me wondering what the actual consumable reserves are.</p><p>How many extra days can an orbiter stay up over its nominal&nbsp; mission?</p><p>Jon</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
E

erioladastra

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The Orbiter possibly staying up for an extra day because of weather got me wondering what the actual consumable reserves are.How many extra days can an orbiter stay up over its nominal&nbsp; mission?Jon <br />Posted by jonclarke</DIV></p><p>It depends but typically after ISS undock we have about 2 days.&nbsp; Here we had a little over 2 days.&nbsp; Usually the O2 is the limiting consumable I believe since you need it for the fuel cells and for breathing.&nbsp;</p>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
<p>Thanks.&nbsp; Can it be stretched any further?&nbsp; In the event of further bad weather how much longer would it be able to stay up before a landing somewhere has to be made?</p><p>What about stand alone missions like Hubble or the old spacelab missions?</p><p>Jon</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
A

aphh

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thanks.&nbsp; Can it be stretched any further?&nbsp; In the event of further bad weather how much longer would it be able to stay up before a landing somewhere has to be made?What about stand alone missions like Hubble or the old spacelab missions?Jon <br /> Posted by jonclarke</DIV></p><p>There are so many back up landing sites in USA, Africa and Europe, that I believe that the probability for bad weather in all of the back up landing sites at the same time must be close to zero.&nbsp;</p><p>Has any of the back up landing sites in Africa or Europe ever been used?&nbsp;</p>
 
B

brandbll

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thanks.&nbsp; Can it be stretched any further?&nbsp; In the event of further bad weather how much longer would it be able to stay up before a landing somewhere has to be made?What about stand alone missions like Hubble or the old spacelab missions?Jon <br />Posted by jonclarke</DIV><br /><br />Is returning to the ISS after it undocked a possibility as well? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="3">You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!</font></p> </div>
 
T

Testing

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Is returning to the ISS after it undocked a possibility as well? <br />Posted by brandbll</DIV></p><p>Pretty sure once they commit&nbsp; to leave that is it.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
L

lampblack

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Pretty sure once they commit&nbsp; to leave that is it.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by Testing</DIV></p><p><font size="2">Yah... they lurk near ISS during the period between undocking and the completion of the final inspection of the wing leading edges. After the inspections are complete and have been evaluated, they do a series of separation burns that pretty much rule out returning to ISS. </font></p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It depends but typically after ISS undock we have about 2 days.&nbsp; Here we had a little over 2 days.&nbsp; Usually the O2 is the limiting consumable I believe since you need it for the fuel cells and for breathing.&nbsp; <br />Posted by erioladastra</DIV><br /><br />I recall being mentioned in a briefing that the limiting factor for this flight was the CO2 scrubbing Lithium hydroxide (I think that's the right material). <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>
 
L

lampblack

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I recall being mentioned in a briefing that the limiting factor for this flight was the CO2 scrubbing Lithium hydroxide (I think that's the right material). <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p><font size="2">I believe I recall hearing the same thing. So it's not that they would have run out of oxygen. But rather, that the oxygen on hand would have become unbreathable.</font></p><p><font size="2">&nbsp;</font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>
 
A

aphh

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I recall being mentioned in a briefing that the limiting factor for this flight was the CO2 scrubbing Lithium hydroxide (I think that's the right material). <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Has Shuttle ever landed outside of USA? I don't remember this option ever being used. There are designated shuttle landing sites atleast in Spain, France and Africa. </p>
 
R

rybanis

Guest
Never outside of the USA. There are backup TAL landing sites in Europe, not so much in Africa these days... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
A

aphh

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Never outside of the USA. There are backup TAL landing sites in Europe, not so much in Africa these days... <br /> Posted by rybanis</DIV></p><p>Ok. Plus I think in a emergency many large airfields or military airfields within the cross-range would do. So staying on orbit to the last minute is hardly required.&nbsp;</p><p>I think GPS navigation would be enough in a emergency landing. Ofcourse it would be extreme situation to be forced to land somewhere else than Cape or Edwards. </p>
 
S

shuttle_guy

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It depends but typically after ISS undock we have about 2 days.&nbsp; Here we had a little over 2 days.&nbsp; Usually the O2 is the limiting consumable I believe since you need it for the fuel cells and for breathing.&nbsp; <br />Posted by erioladastra</DIV></p><p>The limiting factor is normally Lithium hydroxide cannisters for removing CO2 from the cabin air.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>After undocking from the ISS the number of extra days the orbiter can stay up and keep the crew alive is usually 4 or 5 days. MCC never uses up all of the contingency days. As I recall the most contingency time used was on STS-3 as they were not using the KSC runway yet since this was the third flight, Dryden was rained out (the lake bed was a lake and the program was not ready to land on a hard surface runway), we diverted to White Sands and scrubbed a landing day due to a dust storm.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
W

windnwar

Guest
Seems like it'd be easy to carry a spare canister or two if they are crew accessible to change. How much extra time this would give though is the question as to whether it would be worth it or not. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font size="2" color="#0000ff">""Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein"</font></p> </div>
 
E

erioladastra

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Seems like it'd be easy to carry a spare canister or two if they are crew accessible to change. How much extra time this would give though is the question as to whether it would be worth it or not. <br />Posted by windnwar</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>S_G is right - I checked and it was LiOH was the limiting.&nbsp; Cryo was limited to 3 days.&nbsp; </p><p>As to your question - it is always a balance of mass.&nbsp; You want to leave as much as possible at ISS.&nbsp; With cryo, food and LiOH all reaching there limit, another canister doesn't buy you much.&nbsp; We have enough landing sites that you should never need to go that deep in contingencies.</p>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The limiting factor is normally Lithium hydroxide cannisters for removing CO2 from the cabin air.&nbsp;After undocking from the ISS the number of extra days the orbiter can stay up and keep the crew alive is usually 4 or 5 days. MCC never uses up all of the contingency days. As I recall the most contingency time used was on STS-3 as they were not using the KSC runway yet since this was the third flight, Dryden was rained out (the lake bed was a lake and the program was not ready to land on a hard surface runway), we diverted to White Sands and scrubbed a landing day due to a dust storm. <br />Posted by shuttle_guy</DIV><br /><br />Thanks SG.&nbsp; is there some kind of manadated ruled that says thaat there should be two or three days operational reserve for each shuttle mission?&nbsp; How does this compared with Apollo, Gemini and Mercury?</p><p>Thanks</p><p>Jon</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Latest posts