STS-114 Mission Update Thread (Part 5)

[drwayne]

I suspect any thoughts about two flights as test flights, and then we'll loosen up, to the degree that such thoughts really existed, has probably gone out the window.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

Certainly the shuttle arm offers EVA opportunities when it is present. Note that it was removed for the last flight of Columbia.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

Yeah I susspect the daylight launch thing is here to stay <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" />

 

[ozspace]

They did not need to inspect Columbia themselves, they were offered all kinds of other assets (ground based, satellites, etc) to look for damage but declined. These were used on STS-1 when some tiles went missing from the OMS pod, they checked the belly quite well, although I don't know if they could have picked up gap fillers.<br /><br />As far as rapelling "down" to anywhere from the arm would require gravity, mechanical means or some kind of propulsion....oh and to have flown the arm in the first place (did not go up on '107).<br /><br />Also, because of the nature of the mission, I don't think they even had EVA suits....

 

[georgeniebling]

I thought that the Suttle RMS was a permanent installation ... it was/is removeable? <br /><br />So where is Columbia's RMS now? VAB? Could it be added to the ISS?<br />

 

[jaredgalen]

Nice to see Paul again. Cripes he's flying through his <br />report... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[spacefire]

<font color="yellow">I do not agree. I believe will will be allowed night launches after a few flights</font><br /><br />more flights??!?!? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

"when the huge hole in the wing could have easily been spotted by NRO"<br /><br />I don't know that. I do recall that imagery was requested for an earlier flight on another issue and the word was that is was not helpful.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"I suspect that rapelling off the Shuttle Arm would be the way to do it" <br /><br />STS-107 did not have a RMS !!!!"</font><br /><br />For the people in the cheap seats, you really need to be 100% clear, SG.<br /><br />RMS = Remote Manipulator System = Shuttle Orbiter robotic arm<br />STS-107 = Columbia's final flight<br /><br />Putting it all together -- no RMS on STS-107 means that there was no robotic arm carried during Columbia's final flight. Therefore, any hindsight 'solution' which includes the arm is immediately non-viable. While hindsight is <b>normally</b> 20-20, a solution of this nature would be considered in the 20-400+ range*. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />* Sometimes known as 'legally blind' hindsight.

 

[llivinglarge]

SG, if we do decide to go to the Moon again or Mars. Will the methods of getting home be similar to Apollo?

 

[viper101]

LOR - All the way!!<br />But isn't that question about Lunar Return a little off topic?<br />

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"Will the methods of getting home be similar to Apollo? "</font><br /><br />The methods of return from Mars will have essentially zip in common with Apollo. Er -- both will involve a spacecraft, I suppose.<br /><br />The commonality between the forthcoming Moon missions and Apollo's is not set in stone yet. Also -- your question is fairly broad and subject to interpretation. I'm going to assume you're referring specifically to the transit from Lunar Orbit to Earth Orbit. Apollo used two different methods for this. The first several missions (Up to 14 I <b>think</b>) used a free-return trajectory. This trajectory allowed for a free return (abort) from the moon for much of the mission (i.e. a Service Module burn was not required). However, this trajectory only allowed for a narrow strip of the surface of the moon to be accessible for a landing site. The last three (again, I <b>think</b>) missions did not use a free-return, which allowed for a larger range of landing sites, but required an SM burn. Even with later missions though, all of the Apollo landing sites were within a fairly small distance from the equator.<br /><br />The new missions are likely to be targeted towards the poles, which eliminates any possibility of free-return trajectories. Also -- since the new missions will likely start out as Earth Orbit Rendezvous (EOR) rather than the Lunar Orbit Rendezvous (LOR) used in Apollo (although the new missions may well use EOR *and* LOR) -- the Earth-Moon trajectories will be quite different -- which will likely mean the return trajectories are quite different.<br /><br />Trajectories aside -- it looks like the <b>equipment</b> will have clear parallels between Apollo and VSE. The crew section of the CEV will be similar to the Apollo Command Module and it will have a propulsion section much like the Apollo Service Module. There will be almost certainly be a lunar lander similar to that used for Apollo.<br /><br />I'm not really s

 

[Astrosag]

I'm suspecting (and believe) that its a "No" answer but can the shuttle be deorbited and landed autonomously- like the Buran? If not, in the case of an evacuation, a space shuttle would be scrapped (control deobrit but destoryed) ?

 

[Astrosag]

I'm suspecting (and believe) that its a "No" answer but can the shuttle be deorbited and landed autonomously- like the Buran? If not, in the case of an evacuation, a space shuttle would be scrapped?

 

[bobw]

Quote of the day! From the astronaut demonstrating gap filler repair techniques at the news conference. Sorry I don't remember his name.<br /><br />A reporter asked if there had been any more anxiety in the "old days" before inspection vs. the "new days" like now. This is pretty close to the answer.<br /><br />Out the windows you see red plasma, yellow plasma. If you look out the top windows there is a tornado of fire. Reentry has never been considered to be a done deal. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[franson_space]

No, but I read they are looking into it.

 

[franson_space]

Why is that? Seems NASA would be going back in time. Columbia was a terrible loss, but complicated. A lot more complicated that the parachutes not opening! Always found the Apollo landings really risky.

 

[drwayne]

Remember that the return velocity for a Mars mission will be a lot higher than a return from orbit.<br /><br />Wayne<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">The full auto land capability will come with a modification, probably for the next flight.</font>/i><br /><br />Cool !</i>

 

[nacnud]

At last!

 

[franson_space]

Found it.<br /><br />http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?id=26<br /><br />So the next flight isn't for a long time? Or did they speed up the process?

 

[CalliArcale]

Atlantis was set to launch on September 9 as STS-121. That date is questionable in light of the foam shedding problem, which has to be solved before STS-121 can be cleared to fly. So I wouldn't place any bets right now as to when Atlantis will fly.<br /><br />Apart from the foam shedding, the main limitation currently is orbital mechanics. There is presently a requirement for daylight launch and ET sep (unlikely to be lifted in light of the foam shedding on STS-114), and that limits the launch opportunities dramatically. If I'm not mistaken, September *is* the earliest a Shuttle could possibly launch and meet that requirement, totally separate from vehicle processing schedules. <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>

 

[drwayne]

'Yes, well we will never know will we."<br /><br />Very true.<br /><br />"The point is this unfathomable nitpicking by folks like you."<br /><br />I did not nitpick. I just made a statement that I did not know whether your assertion that NRO imagery could have "easily" spotted the damage was true. Thats all. No need to get defensive.<br /><br />The direction that NASA seems to be following now is to get every camera on the shuttle they can. Not all of them appear to be that useful. The Canberra stuff for example, while interesting, (particularly to me) would not appear to be a powerful tool for seeing stuff fall off. This may change somewhat when their sensor changes. from NIR to MWIR - something I am looking foward to.<br /><br />This is data all very useful. What now has to be done is to develop a protocol for using all of this data. Unfortunately, that protocol will only be refined with experience. <br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[emerrill]

""so that in the unlikely event of an abandonment the Shuttle can sit up there until a massive effort is undertaken to save it"<br /><br />Once the fuel cells run out of Cryos it is dead forever. It must be jettisoned to do a controlled entry before the fuel cell reactants are used up. (about 16 days). "<br /><br /><br />Well, I think we need to clarify. They are planning to launch a 'plugin system' to allow the shuttle to draw power from the SS arrays, and use less cryo's, but it will only add a few days of mission time (3-5 days according to an article about the SSPTS(Station-Shuttle Power Transfer System)).<br /><br />Assuming you *could* completely shutdown (and powerback up) the orbiter systems, how long will cryo's last with no use rate (just loss)?<br /><br />-eric <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Yep. I might have this slighly wrong, but I understand its....<br /><br /><br />September.<br /><br />One week window in November.<br /><br />Short window in December.<br /><br />Then Feb 2006.