STS-114 Mission Update Thread (Part 6)

[najab]

I can kinda agree with them that I would feel safer landing a 100 ton brick-with-wings if I could see the ground. But by the same token, the MBLS is <b>very</b> accurate, they could fly a precision touchdown without looking out the window once.

 

[najab]

I just got my question answered....I <i>thought</i> I heard rock music in the background of Discovery's calls down.

 

[emerrill]

So does today turn into a 'off' day for the crew (besides housekeeping tasks)?<br /><br />-eric <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[emerrill]

"I have worked the firing room on the prime launch crew for every Shuttle launch and 4 Apollo launches. I participated in every L-1 day crew briefing. I know the crew schedules. They do not want to get on orbit and have to try and go to sleep 4 or 5 hours after launch unless they have to. This crew had to inorder to match the ISS schedule. This crew was so rushed after making orbit Eileen and Kelly, did not even take time to get out of the Launch And Landing Suit underwear. I have never see that before. You can see then in those blue suits which have the coolant tubes in them on the first crew module TV.<br />The other issue was it is difficult to get to sleep so soon after the launch. They need to burn their adrenalin off!<br /><br />We can agree to disagree on this. "<br /><br /><br />Im curious about this. I read in an article saying that the ISS crew was gatting back to the their normal sleep schedule (waking about 2am, instead of, what was it, like 11pm). Had the timeline been set assuming the first launch day, and then everybody had to adjust as the launch time slipped from the ECO scrub, becuase the mission timeline was 'set in stone'?<br /><br />-eric <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[thepaul]

If the landing is at Edwards, does anyone know whether or not they allow people to come and watch? <br /><br />Nevermind:<br /><br />"Space Shuttle Announcement:<br />Edwards will not be open to the public if the Space Shuttle is forced to land at Edwards due to bad weather in Florida. People who desire entry will be turned away at the gate. "

 

[spacefire]

no Space Oddity? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

just how old are these computers? have they ever been upgraded? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

For here, am I, sh*tting in a tin can/<br />Far above the world<br />Planet Earth is Blue<br />And the vacuum sucks my poo... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[najab]

The memory was changed from core to DRAM - I think that's been the only upgrade. The reason that they haven't upgraded them to modern ones, is that they know these computers <b>very</b> well, a new system may have quirks that they don't know about.<br /><br />In manned spaceflight applications, quirks get you killed.

 

[drwayne]

The computers in question are also very good about being rad-hard.<br /><br />If memory serves (which is dubious considering I am taking a break from doing a computer procurement), the original computers had ancestry back to the computers flown by the F-111<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

wow. the shuttle could have its own 'brain' with today's technology, basically taking care of everything during the launch. wouldn't that reduce the number of mission controllers and thus reduce the costs? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[captsolo]

shuttle_guy: Could you give a link to more information about Space Shuttle control computers? It must be amazing piece of engineering (well, whole Shuttle is) and 'd be interesting to find out more.

 

[drwayne]

"wow. the shuttle could have its own 'brain' with today's technology, basically taking care of everything during the launch. wouldn't that reduce the number of mission controllers and thus reduce the costs?"<br /><br />No, it is the job of the flight computers to control the operation of the shuttle. They are basically the avionics computers. Making them faster or more capable would have no impact on the number of mission controllers.<br /><br />Also note that the computers used for space (or defense) applications carry requirements for capabilities such as rad hardness and testing that mean that, even for a new system, the computers are frequently 3 or more years behind the state of the art.<br /><br />While this adds to expense, and makes spare parts troublesome at times, there are good reasons for it. And for avionics applications, the power afforded by these machines is more than adaquate.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[captsolo]

Sky News e-mail capaign has finished and you can read selected e-mails online. Provides a good view of what people (who cared enough to write) think.<br /><br />read it here

 

[abacus]

Hi<br /><br />Long time reader, first time poster here.<br /><br />I have a question,<br /><br />If in the extremely unlikely event that all landing sites tomorrow and Wednesday have bad weather - what happens?<br /><br />Do they they use one of the overseas abort sites?<br /><br />Thanks<br /><br />Matthew (Kent, UK)

 

[elguapoguano]

My Co-worker just asked me the same question, and I'm not sure of the answer. Shuttle_Guy? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>

 

[drwayne]

Here is a list of landing sites:<br /><br />http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/facility/sts-els.htm<br /><br />Wayne<br /><br />p.s. It sounds like Edwards would be OK for tommorrow if they have to <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[najab]

Yes. If the Shuttle doesn't land tomorrow, it <b>will</b> land on Wednesday - the only question is where. First choice would the the TAL sites, since they have the equipment to support a landing (I guess Diego Garcia falls into this category as well). After that, it would be one of the ECAL sites or another of the emergency strips.

 

[najab]

That list isn't complete. shuttle_guy said that he had a book on his desk with approach maps and aerial photos of all the landing sites - a very thick book.<br /><br />Unfortuneately for us, someone 'borrowed' the book and never brought it back.

 

[emerrill]

"If in the extremely unlikely event that all landing sites tomorrow and Wednesday have bad weather - what happens? "<br /><br />I would think by that Q you are asking what happens if they don't land. Basicly they run out of cryo's, so they lose power, which means no anything else (lifesupport, controls, etc). Basicly they WILL land by wednesday. If by some fluke that all the landing sites had below levels weather, they would land through below nominal weather, rather than just let the crew die in orbit(IMO). <br /><br />I dont know if they still have enough OMS to burn back to the ISS (and for that matter if the orbital dynamics would allow it in a reasonable time span).<br /><br />-eric <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[drwayne]

I would suspect they probably have enough fuel to return to ISS, but I could well be embarassingly wrong there...<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[abacus]

I was actually referring to US landing sites, I assumed there would be an emergency landing elsewhere. Interesting reply all the same.

 

[drwayne]

Its probably not even that accurate. Political and budget changes can change the list....particularly at the emergency level.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[viper101]

emerrill - I suspect you are right - a bad weather landing is better than running everything dry in orbit. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[drwayne]

I could always hope they could land at Eglin.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>