yetmank@merrimack.edu (11/08/90)
Hi all! This may sound like a stupid question, but has there ever been two shuttles in orbit at the same time? Kevin Yetman UUCP%"yetmank%merrimack.edu@samsung.com"
stimey@sequent.UUCP (Greg Peckham) (11/09/90)
I am curious, does anybody out there know if this next launch will be televised?
Thanks much!
Greg Peckham (stimey) *******************************************
Sequent Computer Systems Inc. * *
Systems Test * THIS SPACE FOR RENT (CHEAP) *
1st floor, Columbia * *
Phone: ext. 4425 *******************************************EAO102@psuvm.psu.edu (11/11/90)
No, and at the rate NASA is going, there won't be, for a long time. =)
john@newave.UUCP (John A. Weeks III) (11/12/90)
In article <46100@sequent.UUCP> stimey@crg1.UUCP (Greg Peckham) writes: > does anybody out there know if this next launch will be televised? All shuttle launches are televised on NASA Select (check out your cable system), and CNN and C-Span normally cover all shuttle launches provided that there are no "big" stories breaking. Barring any major problems, it looks like the next launch will be Atlantis with a DOD payload. These missions are classified, so mission coverage will be limited to infrequent DOD provided updates--once a day or so, and are notorious for containing almost no useful information. -john- -- =============================================================================== John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications ...uunet!rosevax!bungia!wd0gol!newave!john ===============================================================================
gregc@cimage.com (Greg Cronau) (11/12/90)
In article <20489.273935bf@merrimack.edu> yetmank@merrimack.edu writes: >Hi all! > >This may sound like a stupid question, but has there ever been two shuttles in >orbit at the same time? No. I *think* JSC can handle 2 shuttles in space at the same time, but their has never been a need to put the extra burden on the system. Why take chances when you don't have to? gregc@cimage.com
gandalf@pro-canaveral.cts.com (Ken Hollis) (11/13/90)
Greetings and Salutations: From: yetmank@merrimack.edu >This may sound like a stupid question, but has there ever been two shuttles in >orbit at the same time? No, there have not ever been two in space at the same time. I would suspect that the amount of traffic over the network would be more than the system could handle, and Houston would probably be overloaded. Ken Hollis. ProLine: gandalf@pro-canaveral Internet: gandalf@pro-canaveral.cts.com UUCP: crash!pro-canaveral!gandalf
rick@ofa123.fidonet.org (Rick Ellis) (11/14/90)
On <Nov 09 05:08> Greg Peckham writes:
GP> I am curious, does anybody out there know if this next launch will be
GP> televised?
It should be but they won't give much warning as to the exact time.
--
Rick Ellis
Internet: rick@ofa123.fidonet.org
Compuserve: >internet:rick@ofa123.fidonet.org
BBS: 714 939-1041
--------------------------------------------------------------------------SCHULZE%ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu@ncsuvm.ncsu.edu (11/16/90)
Very true. However, would it not be good to perhaps one day to a planned double launch simply for testing purposes. I know money is tight, but it would be nic e to have two in space while building the 'space station'. J
wherry@alazif.cxo.dec.com (bradley g wherry) (11/20/90)
> > >This may sound like a stupid question, but has there ever been two shuttles in >orbit at the same time? > I actually asked and recieved an answer to this last week at Space Camp. No. JSC is not equipped to handle the telemetry from two oribters at once. They do have two Misson Control Rooms and I believe there is a backup Misson Control at Goddard as well. This is one of the reasons that the Misson Control Software/Environment is being rewritten/designed at JSC. brad -- brad wherry | Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; wherry@alazif.enet.dec.com | e luce ad tenebras.
vp@cuisun.unige.ch (Vassilis Prevelakis) (11/21/90)
In article <1990Nov19.140100@alazif.cxo.dec.com> wherry@alazif.enet.dec.com writes: >>This may sound like a stupid question, but has there ever been two shuttles in >>orbit at the same time? > >No. JSC is not equipped to handle the telemetry from two oribters at once. >They do have two Misson Control Rooms and I believe there is a backup >Misson Control at Goddard as well. > Eh? Mission control is in Houston TX. JSC has LAUNCH CONTROL ROOMS and it has three of them. Control is passed over to Houston shortly after launch. I am not sure how many mission control rooms are in Houston though. **vp email: vp@cui.unige.ch | Vasilis Prevelakis uucp: ...!mcsun!cui!vp | Centre Universitaire d'Informatique (CUI) Phone: +41 (22) 787 65 86 | 12 Rue du Lac, Fax: +41 (22) 735 39 05 | Geneva, Switzerland CH-1207 Iconoclast: person who hates the Macintosh OS.
aoab314@ut-emx.uucp (Srinivas Bettadpur) (11/22/90)
In article <3795@cuisun.unige.ch> vp@cui.unige.ch (Vassilis Prevelakis) writes: >In article <1990Nov19.140100@alazif.cxo.dec.com> wherry@alazif.enet.dec.com writes: >>>This may sound like a stupid question, but has there ever been two shuttles in >>>orbit at the same time? >> >>No. JSC is not equipped to handle the telemetry from two oribters at once. >Eh? Mission control is in Houston TX. JSC has LAUNCH CONTROL ROOMS >and it has three of them. Control is passed over to Houston shortly >after launch. >I am not sure how many mission control rooms are in Houston though. To add my two cents worth, I thought they were talking about JSC when they mentioned Houston. Or should the sentence read ' "KSC" has LAUNCH CONTROL ROOMS ... ' Anyway, that brings me to my next question. Would some kind soul provide some info on the selection of alternative landing sites for the shuttle ? Somehow, I never knew Florida was an alternative. Don't they need stupendous ground facilities (like a huge runway and so on) for the shuttle to be able land there ? Thanks, in advance Srinivas Bettadpur
jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) (11/23/90)
In article <40040@ut-emx.uucp> aoab314@ut-emx.uucp (Srinivas Bettadpur) writes: >Anyway, that brings me to my next question. Would some kind soul >provide some info on the selection of alternative landing sites for >the shuttle ? Somehow, I never knew Florida was an alternative. >Don't they need stupendous ground facilities (like a huge runway >and so on) for the shuttle to be able land there ? Any airport with a runway longer than 10000 feet can be used as a landing site in a pinch, although the pilot would have to hand-fly it to a landing. If they wanted to get home in a hurry, they could land it at Houston Intercontinental... Of course, thereare other facilities at the "normal" designated landing sites that make the job of getting the shuttle loaded on the 747 a whole lot easier. I don't know how long they'd have to close IAH after the shuttle landed there. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity. "With design like this, who needs bugs?" - Boyd Roberts
lydick@freezer.it.udel.edu (William Lydick) (11/26/90)
In article <40040@ut-emx.uucp> aoab314@ut-emx.uucp (Srinivas Bettadpur) writes: > >Anyway, that brings me to my next question. Would some kind soul >provide some info on the selection of alternative landing sites for >the shuttle ? Somehow, I never knew Florida was an alternative. >Don't they need stupendous ground facilities (like a huge runway >and so on) for the shuttle to be able land there ? >Thanks, in advance >Srinivas Bettadpur Now, I'm not about to claim to be an expert on this (I'm not...:-), but I seem to remember alternate sites being discussed around the first or second launch. if the problem occurs VERY early in the flight, the shuttle could turn around and land at KSC. If the problem occurs after the KSC window, there are/were two sites in Africa(?) for an emergency landing. If the shuttle were too far into the launch for Africa, I think that they just let it go into orbit for a few minutes and land it in the western US. Now, Is there anybody out there who can either: A) Confirm my recollections and add some more detail, or B) Send out the men in white coats for me. WML <SIG IN CONSTRUCTION (Like I-95...ALL of it!)> "I was driving down the road the other day, and I saw a guy leaning on one of those orange MEN AT WORK signs." -- Unknown
gregc@cimage.com (Greg Cronau) (11/26/90)
In article <40040@ut-emx.uucp> aoab314@ut-emx.uucp (Srinivas Bettadpur) writes: >In article <3795@cuisun.unige.ch> vp@cui.unige.ch (Vassilis Prevelakis) writes: >>In article <1990Nov19.140100@alazif.cxo.dec.com> wherry@alazif.enet.dec.com writes: >>>>This may sound like a stupid question, but has there ever been two shuttles in >>>>orbit at the same time? >>> >>>No. JSC is not equipped to handle the telemetry from two oribters at once. >>Eh? Mission control is in Houston TX. JSC has LAUNCH CONTROL ROOMS >>and it has three of them. Control is passed over to Houston shortly >>after launch. >>I am not sure how many mission control rooms are in Houston though. > > To add my two cents worth, I thought they were talking about JSC >when they mentioned Houston. Or should the sentence read > ' "KSC" has LAUNCH CONTROL ROOMS ... ' > >Anyway, that brings me to my next question. Would some kind soul >provide some info on the selection of alternative landing sites for >the shuttle ? Somehow, I never knew Florida was an alternative. >Don't they need stupendous ground facilities (like a huge runway >and so on) for the shuttle to be able land there ? >Thanks, in advance >Srinivas Bettadpur So let me add my two cents worth: I had been under the impression that: 1.) Launches were handled by KSC(the Kennedy Space Center) in Florida. As soon as the vehicle cleared the launch tower, control was handed over to.. 2.) Mission control at JSC(the Johnson Space Center) in Houston Texas. If I've got that wrong, please tell me when this was changed. As far as landing in Florida: The shuttles were intended to *always* land in Florida. Edwards was for initial tests and as a backup location. A special (stupendous) runway was built for shuttle landings. It was intended as the primary landing facility, and as the landing point in case of an abort-to-KSC. It is at least 15,000' long and I believe 2-3 times as wide as a regular runway. Landing the shuttles at KSC eliminates the time consuming, costly, and risky job of mounting the shuttle on the 747 and flying it back to KSC. Unfortunately, the winds off of the ocean at KSC turned out to be fairly tricky and unpredictible. I've heard that most of the astronauts would rather *not* land at KSC. Edwards appears to have become the defacto primary landing site because of it's better weather. (most of the time. :-) ) gregc@cimage.com
cabruen@e40-008-11.MIT.EDU (Charles Alan Bruen) (11/26/90)
>and land at KSC. If the problem occurs after the KSC window, there are/were two >sites in Africa(?) for an emergency landing. If the shuttle were too far into >the launch for Africa, I think that they just let it go into orbit for a few >minutes and land it in the western US. > The KSC landing would be used only in the case of a launch abort. It would need to invovlve pretty serious conditions, due to the loads put on the shuttle. I believe that payloads are not designed to withstand the loads during lanuch abort and therefore very possible might be damaged. The second launch site is in Madrid, Spain, Other than that the shuttle should be able to make it around to a Edwards landing. -Charles Bruen Aero/Astro MIT cabruen@athena.mit.edu
shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) (11/27/90)
Shuttle landing sites:
Primary sites are KSC, Edwards, and White Sands.
KSC (Kennedy Space Center, Florida) has a 15,000' x 300' ft runway
(same size as Edwards AFB) and is the designated landing site for RTLS
(Return To Launch Site) situations. It was intended to be the primary
landing site. However, the unpredictibility of the weather means that
a rainstorm could suddenly appear that would ruin the Shuttle's tiles.
Braking problems have also contributed to its being designated a
backup site.
Edwards AFB, California, is currently the primary landing site, mostly
because our weather is very predictable and virtually rainless
(alas!). We also have a large lakebed that the Shuttle can land on in
a variety of directions, to reduce the problems of crosswinds. The
lakebed runways have higher friction than the paved runway, which
helps the braking problems.
Northrop Field, White Sands, New Mexico, is another backup site--the
least favored in the US. Same big runway, but the gypsite gets in
everything and they have to spend eons cleaning it. The Shuttle
landed there once (STS-3, I think) and will not voluntarily be landed
there again.
Abort sites for problems during launch include Rota, Dakar, and some
others I can't remember. These are _solely_ for getting the Shuttle
down in some sort of good condition. Dakar, for example, has a cliff
at the end of the runway, but the brakes are probably good enough.
These sites are usually international airports that can take 747s,
etc, or military airports that can take C-5s and the runways are at
least 10,000 ft.
When the program first started, there were a lot more contingency sites,
but improvements in cross range have made Edwards reachable.
--
Mary Shafer shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
Of course I don't speak for NASA
"A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all"--Unknown US fighter pilotwherry@alazif.cxo.dec.com (bradley g wherry) (11/27/90)
In article <37200@nigel.ee.udel.edu>, lydick@freezer.it.udel.edu (William Lydick) writes: |>>Anyway, that brings me to my next question. Would some kind soul |>>provide some info on the selection of alternative landing sites for |>>the shuttle ? Somehow, I never knew Florida was an alternative. |>>Don't they need stupendous ground facilities (like a huge runway |>>and so on) for the shuttle to be able land there ? |>>Thanks, in advance |>>Srinivas Bettadpur |> |>Now, I'm not about to claim to be an expert on this (I'm not...:-), but I seem |>to remember alternate sites being discussed around the first or second launch. |>if the problem occurs VERY early in the flight, the shuttle could turn around |>and land at KSC. If the problem occurs after the KSC window, there are/were two |>sites in Africa(?) for an emergency landing. If the shuttle were too far into |>the launch for Africa, I think that they just let it go into orbit for a few |>minutes and land it in the western US. |> |>Now, Is there anybody out there who can either: |> A) Confirm my recollections and add some more detail, or |> B) Send out the men in white coats for me. |> well letsee, first off there is a huge stupendous runway at KSC built just for the shuttle (and the 747 I suppose). KSC has always been an "alternate landing site". ***Warning Potential Botched Nasa speak*** types of aborts (that I can recall off hand) RTLS -- Return to Launch Site (KSC) TAO -- Transatlantic abort (not sure where the o comes from) (Dakar, Madrid any more?) AOA -- Abort to Orbit (not sure where the a comes from) I believe the alternative landing site depends on the inclination of the launch. I believe for the standard launch it is Dakar, Senegal. There are single and double engine failure TAO states. The Public Affairs Officer (PAO) announces when the orbiter has reached any of those states (single engine TAO, AOA etc). -- brad wherry | Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; wherry@alazif.enet.dec.com | e luce ad tenebras.
hwt@bwdlh490.BNR.CA (Henry Troup) (11/27/90)
In article <SHAFER.90Nov26080134@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov>, shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes: |>When the program first started, there were a lot more contingency sites, |>but improvements in cross range have made Edwards reachable. Also, the elimination of polar orbit launches from Vandenberg reduced the number of required contingency sites. I understand that Harry Stine's (LEe Corey) novel _Shuttle_Down_ actually caused NASA to fund some improvement to the runways at Rapa Nua/Isla du Pasqua/Easter Island ? Henry Troup - BNR owns but does not share my opinions | The .signature is the P.O. Box 3511, Stn. C. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1Y 4H7| lowest form of humour uunet!bnrgate!hwt%bwdlh490 HWT@BNR.CA +1 613-765-2337 |
hwt@bwdlh490.BNR.CA (Henry Troup) (11/27/90)
In article <1990Nov26.113837@alazif.cxo.dec.com>, wherry@alazif.cxo.dec.com (bradley g wherry) writes: |>AOA -- Abort to Orbit (not sure where the a comes from) Actually, that's AOA - Abort Once Around - a fractional orbit Abort to Orbit has happened - one mission wound up in an orbit different from that desired. Henry Troup - BNR owns but does not share my opinions | The .signature is the P.O. Box 3511, Stn. C. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1Y 4H7| lowest form of humour uunet!bnrgate!hwt%bwdlh490 HWT@BNR.CA +1 613-765-2337 |
dil@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Perry G Ramsey) (11/27/90)
In article <1990Nov26.113837@alazif.cxo.dec.com>, wherry@alazif.cxo.dec.com (bradley g wherry) writes: > > types of aborts (that I can recall off hand) > > RTLS -- Return to Launch Site (KSC) > TAO -- Transatlantic abort (not sure where the o comes from) > (Dakar, Madrid any more?) TAL. Trans-Atlantic Landing. Dakar is no longer on the list, at least partially because the government of Senegal didn't provide proper security for the equipment which was left over there (i.e., it got ripped off). Marrakech, Morocco is the African TAL site. Rota isn't used because some people didn't like the shape of the runway. Zaragoza, Spain is the northern TAL site. > AOA -- Abort to Orbit (not sure where the a comes from) AOA is abort once around, i.e. land at Edwards on the first pass. ATO is abort to orbit. That means achieve a stable orbit despite some failure which prevents continuation of the mission. Perry G. Ramsey Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences perryr@vm.cc.purdue.edu Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN USA dil@mace.cc.purdue.edu -- Perry G. Ramsey Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences perryr@vm.cc.purdue.edu Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN USA dil@mace.cc.purdue.edu Why waste time learning when ignorance is instantaneous? -- Hobbes
clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones) (11/27/90)
In article <1990Nov26.113837@alazif.cxo.dec.com>, wherry@alazif (bradley g wherry) writes: >***Warning Potential Botched Nasa speak*** > >types of aborts (that I can recall off hand) > >RTLS -- Return to Launch Site (KSC) >TAO -- Transatlantic abort (not sure where the o comes from) > (Dakar, Madrid any more?) TAL -- Trans Atlantic Landing >AOA -- Abort to Orbit (not sure where the a comes from) ATO -- Abort to Orbit AOA -- Abort Once Around Extract from Space Link BBS (heavily abridged): 6.2.3.14.5 ASCENT ABORT MODES There are two basic types of ascent abort modes for space shuttle missions: intact aborts and contingency aborts. An intact abort would provide a safe return of the orbiter to a planned landing site, while a contingency abort is designed to permit the crew to survive following more severe failures when an intact abort is not possible. A contingency abort would generally result in a ditch operation. There are four types of intact abort modes: return to launch site, transatlantic landing, abort to orbit and abort once around. There is a definite order of preference for the various abort modes. The type of failure and the time of the failure would determine which type of abort is selected. In cases where performance loss is the only factor, the preferred modes, in order, would be ATO, AOA, TAL and RTLS. The mode chosen would be the highest one that could be completed with the remaining vehicle performance. For certain support system failures, such as cabin leaks or vehicle cooling problems, the preferred mode might be the one that would end the mission most quickly. In these cases, TAL or RTLS might be preferable to AOA or ATO. A contingency abort would never be chosen if another abort option existed. RETURN TO LAUNCH SITE. The RTLS abort mode is designed to allow the return of the orbiter, crew and payload to the Kennedy Space Center launch site, approximately 25 minutes after lift-off. The RTLS profile would accommodate the loss of thrust from one main engine between lift-off and approximately four minutes and 20 seconds, at which time not enough MPS propellant remains to return to the launch site. TRANSATLANTIC LANDING. In a TAL abort, the vehicle would continue on a ballistic trajectory across the Atlantic Ocean, landing on a predetermined runway approximately 45 minutes after launch. The landing site, which is located near the nominal ascent ground track of the orbiter in order to make the most efficient use of main engine propellant, must have the necessary runway length and U.S. State Department approval. Weather conditions must also be nominal. The three landing sites that have been identified for a due-east launch are Moron, Spain; Dakar, Senegal; and Ben Guerir, Morocco (on the west coast of Africa). ABORT TO ORBIT. The ATO would be used to boost the orbiter to a safe orbital altitude if performance has been lost and it is impossible to reach the planned altitude. If a main engine fails in a region that results in a MECO underspeed, the Mission Control Center would determine that an abort mode is necessary and would inform the crew. In addition, the crew can verify the nominal OMS burn solutions on the OMS-1 maneuver execute display and burn them instead of the nominal targets. Similarly, they would load the ATO OMS-2 burn targets and use them for OMS-2. This results in the orbiter being placed in a circular orbit. ABORT ONCE AROUND. The AOA abort mode would be used when vehicle performance has been lost to such an extent that either it is impossible to achieve a viable orbit or not enough OMS propellant is available to accomplish the OMS-1, OMS-2 and deorbit burns. AOA would also be used in cases in which a major system problem (cabin leak, loss of cooling) made it necessary to land quickly. In this abort, one OMS burn would be made to adjust the post-MECO orbit so that a second OMS burn would cause the vehicle to deorbit and land at the AOA landing site (Northrup, Edwards Air Force Base or Kennedy Space Center). Thus, in an AOA, the orbiter would circle the Earth once and land approximately 90 minutes after lift-off, CONTINGENCY ABORT. Contingency aborts are caused by loss of more than one main engine or failures in other systems. Loss of one main engine while another is stuck at a low thrust setting may also necessitate a contingency abort. Such an abort would maintain orbiter integrity for in-flight crew escape if a landing cannot be made at a suitable landing site. Contingency aborts due to system failures other than those involving the main engines would normally result in an intact recovery of vehicle and crew. Loss of more than one main engine may, depending on engine failure times, result in a safe runway landing. However, in most three-engine-out cases during ascent, the orbiter would have to be ditched. The in-flight crew escape system would be used before ditching the orbiter. -- Chris Jones clj@ksr.com {world,uunet,harvard}!ksr!clj
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (11/28/90)
In article <4956@bwdls58.UUCP> hwt@bwdlh490.BNR.CA (Henry Troup) writes: >... I understand that Harry Stine's >(LEe Corey) novel _Shuttle_Down_ actually caused NASA to fund some >improvement to the runways at Rapa Nua/Isla du Pasqua/Easter Island ? More precisely, concerns about abort sites for polar launches -- partly the result of Stine's novel exposing an embarrassing lack of preparations -- prompted some improvements both there and at another island. -- "I'm not sure it's possible | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology to explain how X works." | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
john@newave.UUCP (John A. Weeks III) (11/29/90)
In <1990Nov26.113837@alazif.cxo.dec.com> wherry@alazif.enet.dec.com writes: > ***Warning Potential Botched Nasa speak*** > AOA -- Abort to Orbit (not sure where the a comes from) Abort Once Around - The shuttle has enough energy to limp around to Edwards or KSC, but not enough for the desired orbit (or any orbit, for that matter). -john- -- =============================================================================== John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications ...uunet!rosevax!bungia!wd0gol!newave!john ===============================================================================
ddavey@cellar.uucp (Doug Davey) (11/29/90)
In article <SHAFER.90Nov26080134@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes: > > KSC (Kennedy Space Center, Florida) has a 15,000' x 300' ft runway > (same size as Edwards AFB) Kind of restricts the size of your hangers & parking lots when your whole Air Force Base is only 300 feet wide, doesn't it? :-) :-) :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Doug Davey bellcore!cellar!ddavey ddavey@cellar.bae.bellcore.com
shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) (11/29/90)
In article <1990Nov28.181601.13722@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> ddavey@cellar.uucp (Doug Davey) writes: >In article <SHAFER.90Nov26080134@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes: >> >> KSC (Kennedy Space Center, Florida) has a 15,000' x 300' ft runway >> (same size as Edwards AFB) >Kind of restricts the size of your hangers & parking lots when your >whole Air Force Base is only 300 feet wide, doesn't it? :-) :-) :-) Yes, but it's really easy to keep it tidy. Well, to cover my lapse I'll inject an actual tidbit of fact. Edwards AFB is the 2nd largest USAF base (Eglin AFB is the biggest) at 301,000 acres (approx. 480 sq mi). -- Mary Shafer shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA Of course I don't speak for NASA "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all"--Unknown US fighter pilot
gamorris@lescsse.uucp (Gary A. Morris) (11/29/90)
In <1990Nov19.140100@alazif.cxo.dec.com> wherry@alazif.cxo.dec.com (bradley g wherry) writes: >JSC is not equipped to handle the telemetry from two oribters at once. >They >do have two Misson Control Rooms and I believe there is a backup Misson Control >at Goddard as well. There are two Flight Control Rooms (FCR), commonly called Mission Control, at JSC. One on the second floor of building 30, and a backup on the third floor. The third floor FCR has always been used for classified DOD flights. There are also limited flight control facilities at White Sands, NM that could be used in an emergency. Goddard controls only unmanned spacecraft. --GaryM -- Gary Morris Internet: lobster!lescsse!gamorris@menudo.uh.edu Lockheed (LESC), A22 UUCP: lobster!lescsse!gamorris Space Station Freedom NASAmail: gmorris/jsc/nasa Houston, Texas Internet: gmorris@nasamail.nasa.gov
petej@phred.UUCP (Pete Jarvis) (11/29/90)
In article <1990Nov26.032232.14814@athena.mit.edu> cabruen@e40-008-11.MIT.EDU (Charles Alan Bruen) writes: > >The KSC landing would be used only in the case of a launch abort. It >would need to invovlve pretty serious conditions, due to the loads put >on the shuttle. I believe that payloads are not designed to withstand >the loads during lanuch abort and therefore very possible might be >damaged. >The second launch site is in Madrid, Spain, Other than that the shuttle >should be able to make it around to a Edwards landing. > There are other TAL (Trans-Atlantic landing sites). One is Dakar, Senegal. The abort modes other than pre-launch aborts (RSLS), are: RTLS (return to launch site), TAL, AOA (abort once around with landing at Edwards or White Sands), and ATO (abort to orbit). Peter Jarvis........Physio-Control Redmond, WA.
hwt@bwdlh490.BNR.CA (Henry Troup) (11/29/90)
In article <523@newave.UUCP>, john@newave.UUCP (John A. Weeks III) writes: |>Abort Once Around - The shuttle has enough energy to limp around to Edwards |>or KSC, but not enough for the desired orbit (or any orbit, for that matter). Has a shuttle ever been landed at KSC? My local radio station reported that the last flight (the classified one - Atlantis? STS-38?) landed at KSC, but they also reported that the greenhouse effect causes the ozone hole :-( and I was off-net for a few days about then :=( Henry Troup - BNR owns but does not share my opinions | The .signature is the P.O. Box 3511, Stn. C. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1Y 4H7| lowest form of humour uunet!bnrgate!hwt%bwdlh490 HWT@BNR.CA +1 613-765-2337 |
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (11/30/90)
In article <4985@bwdls58.UUCP> hwt@bwdlh490.BNR.CA (Henry Troup) writes: >Has a shuttle ever been landed at KSC? ... It was done a few times before the Challenger disaster. They haven't yet worked themselves up to it since, and possibly never will. It is a lot more convenient not to have to ferry the orbiter back across the continent, but the Cape's weather is very hard to predict far enough ahead to make the go/no-go decision for reentry safely. Surprise thunderstorms are common. -- "The average pointer, statistically, |Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology points somewhere in X." -Hugh Redelmeier| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
jabishop@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Jonathan A Bishop) (11/30/90)
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <4985@bwdls58.UUCP> hwt@bwdlh490.BNR.CA (Henry Troup) writes: >>Has a shuttle ever been landed at KSC? ... >It was done a few times before the Challenger disaster. They haven't yet >worked themselves up to it since, and possibly never will. It is a lot >more convenient not to have to ferry the orbiter back across the continent, >but the Cape's weather is very hard to predict far enough ahead to make >the go/no-go decision for reentry safely. Surprise thunderstorms are common. The last one just did. The weather at Edwards was prohibitively bad. Fortunately, we haven't landed any in a thunderstorm, but dense fog developed between re-entry and landing on at least one KSC landing. -- jabishop@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu "Ground Control to Major Tom: Your circuit's dead; there's something wrong. Can you hear me, Major Tom?" -- David Bowie
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (11/30/90)
In article <1990Nov30.003524.848@zoo.toronto.edu> I wrote: >>Has a shuttle ever been landed at KSC? ... > >It was done a few times before the Challenger disaster. They haven't yet >worked themselves up to it since... Wups. It hadn't yet come to my attention that Atlantis landed there after persistent weather problems at Edwards. Sigh. I suppose I can blame it on Peter Yee being late... :-) -- "The average pointer, statistically, |Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology points somewhere in X." -Hugh Redelmeier| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
petej@phred.UUCP (Pete Jarvis) (12/03/90)
In article <4985@bwdls58.UUCP> hwt@bwdlh490.BNR.CA (Henry Troup) writes: >In article <523@newave.UUCP>, john@newave.UUCP (John A. Weeks III) writes: > >Has a shuttle ever been landed at KSC? My local radio station reported that >the last flight (the classified one - Atlantis? STS-38?) landed at KSC, but The last mission (DOD) did land at KSC. There have been about 3 previous landings there also. Peter Jarvis...........
petej@phred.UUCP (Pete Jarvis) (12/03/90)
In article <1990Nov30.044058.6449@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <1990Nov30.003524.848@zoo.toronto.edu> I wrote: >>>Has a shuttle ever been landed at KSC? ... >>It was done a few times before the Challenger disaster. They haven't yet >>worked themselves up to it since... >Wups. It hadn't yet come to my attention that Atlantis landed there >after persistent weather problems at Edwards. Sigh. >-- CNN showed it live. This was the 6th landing there..........P.J.
nick@pro-canaveral.cts.com (Nick Thomas) (12/05/90)
During preparations for STS-26 in 1988, they ran an all-up sim of an RTLS abort. The ascent phase through SRB sep went smoothly. After sep, Main Engine 1 shut down and CapCom J.O. Creighton called up, "Discovery, abort RTLS; push the pushbutton.". The abort was initiated and they pressed on to the Powered Pitch Around Phase. After pitch around, Creighton called up, "Discovery, we show engine 2 in electrical lock-up.". The #1 engine was now stuck at 104%. RCS fuel was dumped, MECO achieved and the ET was jettisoned. They threw a final Nav failure at the crew before the sim was successfully concluded. It was only a sim, but those of us who were listening had a serious case of the white knuckles. Some are of the opinion that the vehicle could not endure the structural loads during powered pitch around. Whatever the questions may be, let's hope it never comes to that. Nick Thomas ProLine: nick@pro-canaveral Internet: nick@pro-canaveral.cts.com UUCP: crash!pro-canaveral!nick ARPA: crash!pro-canaveral!nick@nosc.mil