STS-114 Mission Update Thread (Part 5)

[georgeniebling]

SG ... thanks for letting us know of the decision not to roll out Atlantis.<br /><br />I have mixed emotions:<br /><br />I'm *glad* that STS-300 didn't have to be utilized ....<br />I'm a touch sad that STS-121 will be delayed ....<br /><br />but we're back in space and STS-114 has been (IMHO) a good experience.

 

[erauskydiver]

Are they intentionally trying to avoid flying over land? I dont know why they would do that. Huge airliners and tiny private planes flown by Joe "possibly drunk" Pilot are zipping over the public's head all of the time.

 

[drwayne]

Somewhat less than half is what I remember...<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[arconin]

hehe, well, my point in using gaggle was that since we had 100+ (140 I heard on the news this morning) cameras on the launch if they would attempt to have nearly as many onthe return...I would not expect to see hundreds of aircraft following the return, but maybe a dozen...

 

[spacefire]

hey that track actually makes sense, they can decide between Vandenberg and KSC at the very last moment. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[georgeniebling]

Spacefire ... I'm assuming you mean EDWARDS not Vandenburg .... <br /><br />to my knowledge Vandenburg AFB can't support a Shuttle landing (I don't *think* it is even on the emergency list ....)<br /><br />and from the STS106 track ... an Edwards landing (due to energy issues would be *extremely* difficult to pull off ... imagine making a SEVERE left turn as you pull through the intersection in your VW Beetle doing 17,500.<br /><br />A White Sands landing could be easier but equally dangerous .... <br /><br />Once they de-orbit they are committed to the landing site selected .....<br /><br />or I might be wrong ..... ;-)<br /><br />and yes, I was evil and just compared the Shuttle to a VW Beetle ... but I love the Shuttle *Just as much* as I love my Beetle! So there. ;-)

 

[spacefire]

I didn't mean THAT late, when it's over Mexico, but if you look at the track over the pacific it's almost N-S.<br />yeah, Edwards then, though since the Shutrtle can be launched from Vandenberg I assumed there was a runway there to land on as well. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[georgeniebling]

I don't know if the SLF for Vandenburg was built ... but I don' think so ....

 

[Testing]

Conversion for launch at VAFB was never completed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacefire]

Just land on the Muroc dry lake. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[emerrill]

"Are they intentionally trying to avoid flying over land? I dont know why they would do that. Huge airliners and tiny private planes flown by Joe "possibly drunk" Pilot are zipping over the public's head all of the time."<br /><br />They avoid flying over large population bases due to added risk. It is considered 'risky' so have the orbiter fly over populations exactly for scenarios like Columbia. Its partially lucky that no-one was injured on the ground, but another part of that is that it was over lots of remote land.<br /><br />Aviation is considered less risky because an airplane generally wont effect a large area of land in the case of an accident (maybe a few blocks at worse, not a track miles and mile long), and they have to weigh risk vs. ease of access.<br /><br />Basically there is no reason for NASA to risk the general public.<br /><br />In fact, the NASA commented that a landing at Edward's or White Sands takes them over LA or Mexico City, so that is one of the reason they pick KSC as the primary landing site.<br /><br />-Eric <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[remekr]

"Are they intentionally trying to avoid flying over land?"<br /><br />Yes. I believe one of the CAB recommendations was to limit exposure of populated areas to any potential re-entry debris.<br />All the re-entry paths are going to be over water (as much as possible) from now on.

 

[viper101]

Nick: Thanks for clarifying the STS 107 vs 114 track. Too bad there will be no opportunity to see the re-entry from the US. <br /><br />Mods: About time for STS-114 Mission Update Thread -Part 6.. <br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[shuttle_rtf]

SG -<br /><br /> On page 30 I posted that Atlantis' rollout was - as you've confirmed later in the thread - cancelled (as per STS-300 requirement etc.)....but the info was a "no sooner than" date of 0001 Sunday. <br /><br /> Seen as your info is newer, is this time still right, or do you have an update on rollout plans?<br /><br /> i.e. Can I safely assume this is simply for testing, and do you know what sort of tests will be conducted?<br /><br /> Thanks.

 

[spacefire]

from the track posted here choosing California over Florida as a landing site doesn't seem to require a steeper turn than the change in direction necessary to reach Florida. Of course, that's a projection of a spherical surface, so it might be an illusion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Thanks SG <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> I hope this all turns around as soon as can be in continuing Return to Flight.<br /><br />I'm refusing to class this as grounding, I prefer to think of this as Test Flight 1....mods to be done from new lessons learned....to STS-121.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Well if that becomes the case, safe flight, have a great time and see if you can spot an X-33 under some sheeting somewhere in the area. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Sidenote, the media is getting desperate, BBC News just had Steve Wallace, the director of the office of accident investigation for the US Federal Aviation Administration on the news. He kindly pointed out that if commercial air travel had the same accident rate as the shuttle programme, 566 airliners would crash every day.<br /><br />What a pointless statistic!

 

[spacefire]

<font color="yellow">You do not understand orbital mechanics and the resulting ground track. The curve to Florida is mostly due to the Shuttle Orbiter's orbit. It is curved due to the Earth turning under it. It is not possible for the Orbiter to fly to California from that ground track. It would require a cross range of 2,500 miles or so when it can only fly 800 miles to the side. </font><br /><br />Ok, I think I understand, as Discovery enters the atmosphere it will sync with the planet's rotation which is from West to East, thus its E- />W component of velocity induced by the planet rotating under will disappear and the path will appear to take an Easterly turn. I simply didn't think about that when I posted, but please don't accuse me of not understanding orbital mechanics, I breezed thorugh that class in college and &%$#@!ed the curved up so that everybody hated me <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> ah well, like it &%$#@!ing matters.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

twill you please post this in fkiwi's thread... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[bushuser]

Won't it be interesting to compare the condition of the shuttle now to what is found after landing. We've never had the benefit of a tile survey while in orbit.<br /><br />I'm betting there will be a couple more gap fillers shaken lose by reentry, and with no serious consequence.

 

[najab]

Now's as good a time to split the thread as any...see you on the other side. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />