TNEDDERH@ESOC.BITNET (Thorsten Nedderhut) (05/16/91)
Peter E. Yee wrote a very long article about STS-40.
Two questions:
1. Does there exist more Space Shuttle abort modes? Can you give me more
detailed information about them?
2. The article (part II) was missing the pages 43 following.
Regrads
-Thorsten-
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Thorsten Nedderhut tnedderh@esoc
mbp Software & Systems GmbH ESA/ESOC/ECD/OAD/STB
Dortmund, Germany Darmstadt, Germanyfcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) (05/17/91)
In article <91136.092515TNEDDERH@ESOC.BITNET> TNEDDERH@ESOC.BITNET (Thorsten Nedderhut) writes: >1. Does there exist more Space Shuttle abort modes? Can you give me more > detailed information about them? Pulling this out of the Rodgers Commision Report (pp178-184): Return-to-Launch-Site Abort (RTSL): Used if a main engine fails in the first four min. of flight. After the Soild Rocket Boosters burn out, (if the failure was in the first 2 min.) and after "excess propellant" is burned. The shuttle turns around (its still in the atmosphere) and lands at its launch site. Transatlantic Landing Abort (TAL): Used if the engines fail later, or less completely, that in the case of a RTSL. The shuttle alters its launch profile so that it will fly a ballistic "hop" to a landing site in Europe or Africa (I believe the primary site is in Spain). Abort-Once-Around (AOA): If the shuttle works well enough to go into orbit, but is unable to reach a stable orbit (e.g. so low that atmospheric drag is a major factor.) The shuttle flys ONE orbit, then re-enters and lands at Edwards. (Better hope the landing conditions are OK.) Abort-TO-Orbit (ATO): Occurs in the event of a very late or limited failure of a main engine. In this case, the shuttle goes into a low, but stable, orbit. This may or may not cause a mission failure. A zero-gravity science mission would not care that they were not in the intended orbit, so long as it is a stable and recoverable orbit (Which the ATO is. If the orbit isn't, they Abort-Once-Around.) Some missions (Earth observing, spacecraft launch, etc. ) may be sensitive to the final orbit. In such a case the mission would be a failure. (I believe the ATO orbit is too low to modify significantly with the OMS rockets.) This abort mode was flown once. Flight 19 (51-F), orbiter Challenger, (If I'm wrong it was Flight 17(51-B) of Challenger) made an Abort to Orbit in 1985. These also exist emergency modes, such as ditching the orbiter in the ocean. This, of course, destroyes the orbiter, but might save the crew. After the Challenger loss, these modes were improved to make them safer, but I belive the main aspects (as I discribed above) were not changed. Frank Crary UC Berkeley
schriber@horizon.COM (Mike Schriber) (05/19/91)
About the Challenger making an ATO: Does anyone know what caused the abort modeon that flight? -- Mike Schriber | schriber@horizon.com Science Horizons Guest Account | (619)755-6042 voice Sysop: The Dead Zone BBS/PDSE | (619)755-3350 BBS WWIVnet Member System | 1@6952 (WWIVnet Address)
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (05/21/91)
In article <150@toad.horizon.COM> schriber@horizon.COM (Mike Schriber) writes: >About the Challenger making an ATO: Does anyone know what caused the abort >mode on that flight? Malfunctioning temperature sensors shut down one engine (and came close to shutting down another; they were manually overridden). -- And the bean-counter replied, | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology "beans are more important". | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
TNEDDERH@ESOC.BITNET (Thorsten Nedderhut) (05/22/91)
About the Challenger performing the ATO: is it true that is payload was the
german funded D2 mission (Spacelab for microgravity environment? And what were
its foreseen and actual orbits?
Regards
-Thorsten
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Thorsten Nedderhut | Jetzt geht's rund, sprach der
mbp Software & Systems GmbH | Papagei und flog in den
c/o ESA/ESOC/ECD/OAD/STB | Ventilator.
Darmstadt, Germany |
tnedderh@esoc.bitnet | (n.n.)p515dfi@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de (Daniel Fischer) (05/22/91)
In article <91142.084340TNEDDERH@ESOC.BITNET> TNEDDERH@ESOC.BITNET (Thorsten Nedderhut) writes: >About the Challenger performing the ATO: is it true that is payload was the >german funded D2 mission (Spacelab for microgravity environment? And what were >its foreseen and actual orbits? No, it was an astronomical mission that used only the SL platform as a means of transporting telescopes (similar to Astro-1). D2 came later that year, and then the orbiter was gone...