mmachlis@athena.mit.edu (Matthew A Machlis) (02/26/91)
Two questions about the fuel line doors, which have the cracked hinges on Discovery and Columbia, if anyone has any information: 1) Is there any kind of sensor which indicates to the crew or ground controllers whether or not the doors are closed? Or do they have to just wait and see if the orbiter survives reentry or not? 2) Granted that it would be extremely risky and expensive, but if they knew the doors hadn't closed correctly is there any way they could try to close them manually through an EVA? -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Machlis MIT Space Systems Laboratory (617)253-2272
pstinson@pbs.org (02/27/91)
In article <1991Feb25.204556.16156@athena.mit.edu>, mmachlis@athena.mit.edu (Matthew A Machlis) writes: > > Two questions about the fuel line doors, which have the cracked hinges on > Discovery and Columbia, The only cracks detected so far are in the hinges on Discovery and only Discovery. Columbia is simply being used as a handy reference. I am not aware that any cracks have actually been found in its hinges.
cornutt@freedom.msfc.nasa.gov (David Cornutt) (02/27/91)
I don't know if the onboard systems will indicate the status of the door, but the MCC certainly can tell. Having them not closed is not necessarily fatal. I'll have to go look up the procedure for that. -- David Cornutt, New Technology Inc., Huntsville, AL (205) 461-6457 (cornutt@freedom.msfc.nasa.gov; some insane route applies) "The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of my employer, not necessarily mine, and probably not necessary."
clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones) (02/28/91)
In article <1991Feb26.112746.11838@pbs.org>, pstinson@pbs writes: > >The only cracks detected so far are in the hinges on Discovery and only >Discovery. Columbia is simply being used as a handy reference. I am not aware >that any cracks have actually been found in its hinges. The edited excerpt below is from an article posted to sci.space. I believe I've left enough in to enable you to find the original. As can be seen, cracks *have* been found on Columbia's ET door mechanism. From: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: NASA Headline News for 02/22/91 (Forwarded) Message-ID: <1991Feb22.223645.6031@news.arc.nasa.gov> This is NASA Headline News for Friday, February 22, 1991 Kennedy Space Center launch team staff are proceeding with preparations for Shuttle Mission STS-39. Analysis of hinge cracks on Discovery's fuel line door mechanisms continues. As part of this ongoing analysis, a door closure test is scheduled for late this weekend on Columbia's fuel door mechanisms. Atlantis and Columbia have been examined to determine if similar conditions exist on their door mechanisms. No cracks have been found in the ET door mechanism on Atlantis, now scheduled to launch in April on its Gamma Ray Observatory deployment mission. Inspection of the door mechanism on Columbia has revealed three small cracks. Analysis of Columbia's situation continues. -- Chris Jones clj@ksr.com {world,uunet,harvard}!ksr!clj
john@newave.UUCP (John A. Weeks III) (03/01/91)
In article <1991Feb26.230611.4715@freedom.msfc.nasa.gov> cornutt@freedom.msfc.nasa.gov (David Cornutt) writes: > I don't know if the onboard systems will indicate the status of the door, > but the MCC certainly can tell. Having them not closed is not > necessarily fatal. I'll have to go look up the procedure for that. If you know about it in advance, i.e. in orbit before re-entry, this problem should not be fatal. All they would have to do is send up Columbia or Atlantis to pick up the crew of Discovery. You might also have to send up a Progress resupply ship (or two) for the crew while they wait for the next shuttle to be mission ready 8-( If Discovery could not safely re-enter, rename it "Freedom" and call the mission a success. At least we would have some space station hardware in orbit as a result. -john- -- =============================================================================== John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications ...uunet!rosevax!tcnet!wd0gol!newave!john ===============================================================================
v071pzp4@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Craig L Cole) (03/04/91)
In article <675@newave.UUCP>, john@newave.UUCP (John A. Weeks III) writes... >In article <1991Feb26.230611.4715@freedom.msfc.nasa.gov> cornutt@freedom.msfc.nasa.gov (David Cornutt) writes: >> I don't know if the onboard systems will indicate the status of the door, >> but the MCC certainly can tell. Having them not closed is not >> necessarily fatal. I'll have to go look up the procedure for that. > >If you know about it in advance, i.e. in orbit before re-entry, this >problem should not be fatal. All they would have to do is send up >Columbia or Atlantis to pick up the crew of Discovery. You might also >have to send up a Progress resupply ship (or two) for the crew while they >wait for the next shuttle to be mission ready 8-( Could the shuttle rendevous with Mir instead? Just park outside and MMU (or float) over to Mir for a visit? Or would it depend on the inclination the shuttle was launched? Just wondering, Craig Cole V071PZP4@UBVMS.CC.BUFFALO.EDU V071PZP4@UBVMS.BITNET
clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones) (03/04/91)
In article <62941@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU>, v071pzp4@ubvmsd (Craig L Cole) writes: >In article <675@newave.UUCP>, john@newave.UUCP (John A. Weeks III) writes... >>If you know about it in advance, i.e. in orbit before re-entry, this >>problem should not be fatal. All they would have to do is send up >>Columbia or Atlantis to pick up the crew of Discovery. You might also >>have to send up a Progress resupply ship (or two) for the crew while they >>wait for the next shuttle to be mission ready 8-( > >Could the shuttle rendevous with Mir instead? Just park outside and >MMU (or float) over to Mir for a visit? Or would it depend on the >inclination the shuttle was launched? > This whole thread is a (bad) joke, right? ALL they would have to do is to launch another shuttle? It strains credulity to believe NASA could ready and launch a shuttle in time to rescue another shuttle in distress. And, shuttle orbits are chosen with mission requirements in mind, not to accommodate some hypothetical resupply from Progress or rendezvous with Mir. Yes, the differing inclinations would be a major factor working against a rendezvous. Leaving aside that (and other orbital mechanics considerations), the shuttle hasn't yet ever had a docking system installed. When it does, it won't be compatible with the Soviet system. Progress would have nothing useful to do even if it and the shuttle were in the same orbit. Also, since only two EVA suits are carried on a shuttle mission, any crew transfer to Mir would involve the the untested rescue balls. It certainly seems simpler to just get the damn doors closed. -- Chris Jones clj@ksr.com {world,uunet,harvard}!ksr!clj
v071pzp4@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Craig L Cole) (03/05/91)
In article <2433@ksr.com>, clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones) writes... >In article <62941@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU>, v071pzp4@ubvmsd (Craig L Cole) writes: > >This whole thread is a (bad) joke, right? Geeez! Ask a question! > ALL they would have to do is to >launch another shuttle? It strains credulity to believe NASA could ready and >launch a shuttle in time to rescue another shuttle in distress. And, shuttle >orbits are chosen with mission requirements in mind, not to accommodate some >hypothetical resupply from Progress or rendezvous with Mir. Yes, the differing >inclinations would be a major factor working against a rendezvous. Okay - how much _can_ the shuttle alter its orbital incliination and alitutude? If landing before consumable had run out was impossible, the astronauts would be able to use the fuel planned for deorbiting to change orbits. Considering the burns necessary to deorbit the ship, you'd have quite a bit of fuel to move around. Of course, a rescue mission would still be needed for the orbiter. A in-flight refueling, or maybe a booster strapped to it to get it out of orbit. > Leaving >aside that (and other orbital mechanics considerations), the shuttle hasn't yet >ever had a docking system installed. When it does, it won't be compatible with >the Soviet system. Progress would have nothing useful to do even if it and the >shuttle were in the same orbit. Also, since only two EVA suits are carried on >a shuttle mission, any crew transfer to Mir would involve the the untested >rescue balls. It certainly seems simpler to just get the damn doors closed. Of course fixing the doors would be simpler, but the question was, what if you _couldn't_? About EVAing to Mir -- no one said they all had to go at once. Relax a little! If we knew the answers to these questions, we wouldn't be asking them! >Chris Jones clj@ksr.com {world,uunet,harvard}!ksr!clj Craig Cole V071PZP4@UBVMS.CC.BUFFALO.EDU V071PZP4@UBVMS.BITNET
clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones) (03/05/91)
In article <63125@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU>, v071pzp4@ubvmsd (Craig L Cole) writes: > >Okay - how much _can_ the shuttle alter its orbital incliination and >alitutude? > Off the top of my head, the simple answers are that the shuttle would probably have no trouble matching the apogee and perigee of Mir or a Progress, but you can't expect the orbits to be in phase, so you'd have to spend more fuel and time to get the orbits in sync. It really doesn't matter, though, because the inclination is a real killer. I don't know how much delta-v the shuttle typically has available in its OMS after orbital insertion (it clearly depends on the OMS specific impulse and the characteristics of the shuttles cargo and launch profile), but a 20 degree plane change (about what one might expect given the latitudes of Baikonur and Canaveral) would take about 8700 feet/sec of delta-v. I don't think that's within the shuttle's capabilities. >If landing before consumable had run out was impossible, the astronauts >would be able to use the fuel planned for deorbiting to change orbits. >Considering the burns necessary to deorbit the ship, you'd have quite >a bit of fuel to move around. It only takes about 300 feet/sec to deorbit the shuttle. That's pretty insignificant compared to the inclination- changing requirement. > >Of course fixing the doors would be simpler, but the question was, >what if you _couldn't_? If you can't do the simpler thing, why does doing the more difficult thing have any chance of success? -- Chris Jones clj@ksr.com {world,uunet,harvard}!ksr!clj
peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (03/06/91)
clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones) writes: > >Of course fixing the doors would be simpler, but the question was, > >what if you _couldn't_? > If you can't do the simpler thing, why does doing the more difficult thing > have any chance of success? This is a simplistic response to the question. "Difficulty" isn't a linear measure. This isn't D&D where you roll 6d6 to see if you can get the doors closed, and 9d6 to see if you can change orbits. It may require tooling you don't have or procedures you can't perform in vaccuum. It may be that you could achieve partial success: rescuing some of the crew, perhaps, by using payload thrusters. Or rescue the crew and lose the orbiter. For that matter you might be able to save the orbiter by putting it in a higher orbit, rather than trying to save the crew. It's a complex question and deserves more than a simple answer. -- (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com) `-_-' 'U`
bill@dmntor.UUCP (Bill Kyle) (03/08/91)
>>>problem should not be fatal. All they would have to do is send up >>>Columbia or Atlantis to pick up the crew of Discovery. You might also >>>have to send up a Progress resupply ship (or two) for the crew while they >>>wait for the next shuttle to be mission ready 8-( > >This whole thread is a (bad) joke, right? ALL they would have to do is to >launch another shuttle? It strains credulity to believe NASA could ready and >launch a shuttle in time to rescue another shuttle in distress. And, shuttle >orbits are chosen with mission requirements in mind, not to accommodate some >hypothetical resupply from Progress or rendezvous with Mir. Yes, the differing >inclinations would be a major factor working against a rendezvous. Leaving >aside that (and other orbital mechanics considerations), the shuttle hasn't yet >ever had a docking system installed. When it does, it won't be compatible with >the Soviet system. Progress would have nothing useful to do even if it and the >shuttle were in the same orbit. Also, since only two EVA suits are carried on >a shuttle mission, any crew transfer to Mir would involve the the untested >rescue balls. It certainly seems simpler to just get the damn doors closed. > Now now don't be harsh, yes your right about getting the doors closed however hypothetically if NASA HAD TOO they could probably manage a rescue with another shuttle. NASA would tempararily suspend many of its redundant safety proceeduresand other proceedures that bog down the turn around time. Large organisations rarely are as efficient as they can be until an emergency takes-place. Bill >Chris Jones clj@ksr.com {world,uunet,harvard}!ksr!clj
jdeitch@umiami.ir.miami.edu (Jonathan Deitch) (03/08/91)
In article <1991Mar7.171349.14914@dmntor.UUCP>, bill@dmntor.UUCP (Bill Kyle) writes: >>>>problem should not be fatal. All they would have to do is send up >>>>Columbia or Atlantis to pick up the crew of Discovery. You might also >>>>have to send up a Progress resupply ship (or two) for the crew while they >>>>wait for the next shuttle to be mission ready 8-( >> >>This whole thread is a (bad) joke, right? ALL they would have to do is to >>launch another shuttle? It strains credulity to believe NASA could ready and >>launch a shuttle in time to rescue another shuttle in distress. And, shuttle >>orbits are chosen with mission requirements in mind, not to accommodate some >>hypothetical resupply from Progress or rendezvous with Mir. Yes, the differing >>inclinations would be a major factor working against a rendezvous. Leaving >>aside that (and other orbital mechanics considerations), the shuttle hasn't yet >>ever had a docking system installed. When it does, it won't be compatible with >>the Soviet system. Progress would have nothing useful to do even if it and the >>shuttle were in the same orbit. Also, since only two EVA suits are carried on >>a shuttle mission, any crew transfer to Mir would involve the the untested >>rescue balls. It certainly seems simpler to just get the damn doors closed. >> > Now now don't be harsh, yes your right about getting the doors closed however > hypothetically if NASA HAD TOO they could probably manage a rescue with another > shuttle. NASA would tempararily suspend many of its redundant safety proceeduresand other proceedures that bog down the turn around time. Large organisations > rarely are as efficient as they can be until an emergency takes-place. Yeah. Look at how fast the military moved getting all the troops over to the middle east - and the military is FAMOUS for its beaurocracy (sp?). Had the flare up in the middle east happened in any way other than an outright invasion but made moving troops over there neccessary, I bet we would some serious red tape tangles. All you need is some serious situation and someone will simply say "Damn the torpedos - full speed ahead" and get the job done. > Bill > >>Chris Jones clj@ksr.com {world,uunet,harvard}!ksr!clj - Jonathan ------------------------------------------------------------------- Internet : jdeitch@umiami.miami.edu "Good musicians execute their music but bad ones Voice : (305) - 284 - 6482 murder it !!! "
clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones) (03/08/91)
In article <1991Mar8.003229.8019@umiami.ir.miami.edu>, jdeitch@umiami (Jonathan Deitch) writes: >In article <1991Mar7.171349.14914@dmntor.UUCP>, bill@dmntor.UUCP (Bill Kyle) writes: >>>>> All they would have to do is send up >>>>>Columbia or Atlantis to pick up the crew of Discovery. >>>This whole thread is a (bad) joke, right? ALL they would have to do is to >>>launch another shuttle? It strains credulity to believe NASA could ready and >>>launch a shuttle in time to rescue another shuttle in distress. >>> It certainly seems simpler to just get the damn doors closed. >>> >> Now now don't be harsh, yes your right about getting the doors closed however >> hypothetically if NASA HAD TOO they could probably manage a rescue with another >> shuttle. NASA would tempararily suspend many of its redundant safety >> proceedures and other proceedures that bog down the turn around time. Large organisations >> rarely are as efficient as they can be until an emergency takes-place. Given the shuttle processing facilities at the Cape, given the parts cannabilization that goes on to fly one shuttle at a time, and given the consumable situation on a shuttle, I stand by my statement. You might get "lucky" and have two shuttles nearing flight-readiness at one time (most likely due to one of them having been delayed so the other catches up), but I still hold it's extremely unlikely that a second shuttle could be launched in time to rescue the first, even if you cut every corner in sight. NASA has plans to stick extra seats in the mid-deck to accommodate a rescued crew, but I think that plans like these are predicated on a larger fleet and a shorter turn-around time. >Yeah. Look at how fast the military moved getting all the troops over to the >middle east - and the military is FAMOUS for its beaurocracy (sp?). Had the >flare up in the middle east happened in any way other than an outright invasion >but made moving troops over there neccessary, I bet we would some serious red >tape tangles. All you need is some serious situation and someone will simply >say "Damn the torpedos - full speed ahead" and get the job done. I don't see how looking at the military buildup in the middle east tells us anything useful about rapidly launching a shuttle. Also, it took *MONTHS* to get the military over there--this wasn't quite a rapid deployment. -- Chris Jones clj@ksr.com {world,uunet,harvard}!ksr!clj
gregc@cimage.com (Greg Cronau) (03/09/91)
In article <1991Mar7.171349.14914@dmntor.UUCP> bill@dmntor.UUCP (Bill Kyle) writes: >>>>problem should not be fatal. All they would have to do is send up >>>>Columbia or Atlantis to pick up the crew of Discovery. You might also >>>>have to send up a Progress resupply ship (or two) for the crew while they >>>>wait for the next shuttle to be mission ready 8-( >> >>This whole thread is a (bad) joke, right? ALL they would have to do is to >> >Now now don't be harsh, yes your right about getting the doors closed however >hypothetically if NASA HAD TOO they could probably manage a rescue with another >shuttle. NASA would tempararily suspend many of its redundant safety >proceedures and other proceedures that bog down the turn around time. >Large organisations rarely are as efficient as they can be until an >emergency takes-place. > >Bill Speaking of bad jokes. How about a dose of reality here? Movies like "Marooned" to the contrary, I sincerely doubt that NASA would risk losing a *second* shuttle on the *very slight* chance of saving another one. When I say "losing a shuttle", I mean both the vehicle *and* crew, not just the vehicle. Those safety procedures are there for a reason. Unless there happens to be a shuttle already sitting on the pad, I doubt they could get one launched even if *ALL* safety procedure were ignored. And that would be a suicidal risk. gregc@cimage.com