jim@hardees.rutgers.edu (Jim Martin) (11/19/89)
A quick question from a novice... When does the name change in the official reports? I realize that sounds confusing, so for example, right now STS-32 has flown, and is recieving post flight service. My question is when will they start refering to it with the name referencing its next flight (STS-whatever). Is there a specific step where they say "After I do this it won't be called STS-32 any more"? Thanks in avance. Jim
bdz@sam.cs.cmu.edu (Brian Zill) (11/19/89)
jim@hardees.rutgers.edu (Jim Martin) writes: >A quick question from a novice... When does the name change in the >official reports? I realize that sounds confusing, so for example, >right now STS-32 has flown, and is recieving post flight service. My >question is when will they start refering to it with the name >referencing its next flight (STS-whatever). From my observations, the designation changes when the Shuttle arrives back at KSC. All post flight service is done under the next flight's number, they seem to consider post flight service as part of prepping the craft for the subsequent mission. Flying the craft back to KSC aboard the 747 shuttle carrier aircraft appears to be the last step of any given mission. I believe you are confused by the fact that the STS numbers are not being flown in stict numerical order. STS-32 [LDEF retrieval] has NOT been flown yet, and in fact it will follow STS-33 [DoD mission]. --Brian
johna@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (john.a.welsh) (11/21/89)
In article <7036@pt.cs.cmu.edu>, bdz@sam.cs.cmu.edu (Brian Zill) writes: > jim@hardees.rutgers.edu (Jim Martin) writes: > >A quick question from a novice... When does the name change in the > >official reports? > From my observations, the designation changes when the Shuttle arrives back > at KSC. > --Brian When if ever will they start regularly landing the shuttles at that landing strip in Florida? How far is it from the VAB at Kennedy? One more question, it must cost a lot to fly the shuttles piggyback on the 747, so wouldn't it be more cost effective to start landing in Florida, or is there some other reason for California? Brian, Thanks for the explanation on why the STS numbers are sometimes not seemingly right. John Welsh mtgzy!jaw
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (11/21/89)
In article <2394@cbnewsj.ATT.COM> johna@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (john.a.welsh) writes: >When if ever will they start regularly landing the shuttles at that >landing strip in Florida? How far is it from the VAB at Kennedy? It's right next door to the VAB. NASA originally wanted to land most every shuttle there, to save transportation problems. This plan is on the shelf, probably permanently, as a result of post-Challenger safety reviews. The fact is, KSC is a lousy place to land a shuttle. Most especially and in particular, it is quite possible to get a surprise thunderstorm brewing up between retrofire and landing. KSC gets *lots* of short-notice thunderstorms. At Edwards the weather is much more predictable -- and usually perfect -- and the runways are much longer and run in various directions to suit current winds. Edwards is the primary landing site for the foreseeable future. -- A bit of tolerance is worth a | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology megabyte of flaming. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
bruno@sdcc10.ucsd.edu (Bruce W. Mohler) (11/23/89)
In article <1989Nov21.051136.18065@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > ...NASA originally wanted to land most > every shuttle [at KSC], to save transportation problems... > ...The fact is, KSC is a lousy place to land a shuttle. Most > especially and in particular, it is quite possible to get a surprise > thunderstorm brewing up between retrofire and landing. KSC gets *lots* > of short-notice thunderstorms. At Edwards the weather is much more > predictable -- and usually perfect -- and the runways are much longer > and run in various directions to suit current winds. Edwards is the > primary landing site for the foreseeable future. > -- > A bit of tolerance is worth a | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology > megabyte of flaming. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu Why don't they launch from Edwards as well then? -- Bruce W. Mohler Systems Programmer (aka Staff Analyst) bruno@sdcc10.ucsd.edu voice: 619/586-2218
fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (11/23/89)
In article <5315@sdcc6.ucsd.edu>, bruno@sdcc10.ucsd.edu (Bruce W. Mohler) writes: > In article <1989Nov21.051136.18065@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > > ...NASA originally wanted to land most > > every shuttle [at KSC], to save transportation problems... > > ...The fact is, KSC is a lousy place to land a shuttle. Most > [...*why* it's a lousy place...] > Why don't they launch from Edwards as well then? For non-polar orbits, it helps to launch to the east (getting a free couple hundred miles/hr toward orbit velocity needed). East of KSC is lots of water. East of EAFB is lots of land, contaminated (as it were :} ) with people. ------------ "...Then anyone who leaves behind him a written manual, and likewise anyone who receives it, in the belief that such writing will be clear and certain, must be exceedingly simple-minded..." Plato, _Phaedrus_ 275d
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (11/24/89)
In article <5315@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> bruno@sdcc10.ucsd.edu (Bruce W. Mohler) writes: > > ... Edwards is the > > primary landing site for the foreseeable future. > >Why don't they launch from Edwards as well then? Life would be simpler if they could. Apart from historical complications (all the heavy launch facilities are at KSC), the problem is that the range- safety people want to see several hundred kilometers, at least, of ocean or uninhabited land downrange of a launch site. Edwards and related sites simply can't meet that requirement. That's why missile testing moved from White Sands (in New Mexico) to Cape Canaveral in the first place. NASA considered various other sites when deciding where the heavy-launch base for spaceflight should be, but the physics of the situation make it very desirable to launch eastward from as near the equator as possible, and the Cape already had a lot of the infrastructure needed. -- A bit of tolerance is worth a | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology megabyte of flaming. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
thomas@mvac23.UUCP (Thomas Lapp) (11/27/89)
> I believe you are confused by the fact that the STS numbers are not being > flown in stict numerical order. STS-32 [LDEF retrieval] has NOT been flown > yet, and in fact it will follow STS-33 [DoD mission]. > Is the reason that the flight numbers are not sequential due to the fact that the order of the manifest changed after it was originally planned? - tom -- internet : mvac23!thomas@udel.edu or thomas%mvac23@udel.edu uucp : {ucbvax,mcvax,psuvax1,uunet}!udel!mvac23!thomas Europe Bitnet: THOMAS1@GRATHUN1 Location: Newark, DE, USA Quote : Virtual Address eXtension. Is that like a 9-digit zip code? -- The UUCP Mailer
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (11/28/89)
In article <115.UUL1.3#5131@mvac23.UUCP> mvac23!thomas@udel.edu writes: >Is the reason that the flight numbers are not sequential due to the fact >that the order of the manifest changed after it was originally planned? Correct. The manifest has changed several times. -- That's not a joke, that's | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology NASA. -Nick Szabo | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
thomas@mvac23.UUCP (Thomas Lapp) (11/29/89)
> In article <5315@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> bruno@sdcc10.ucsd.edu (Bruce W. Mohler) writes: > > > ... Edwards is the > > > primary landing site for the foreseeable future. > > > >Why don't they launch from Edwards as well then? > > Life would be simpler if they could. Apart from historical complications > (all the heavy launch facilities are at KSC), the problem is that the range- > safety people want to see several hundred kilometers, at least, of ocean or > uninhabited land downrange of a launch site. Just to bring the point home, if Challenger had been launched from Edwards, where would the pieces have hit the earth? I imagine it would have been more of a mess than what happened when the Pan Am 747 rained down upon Lockerbie, Scottland (No, I'm not trying to be funny here -- I lost a high-school classmate in that one). > A bit of tolerance is worth a | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology > megabyte of flaming. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu - tom -- internet : mvac23!thomas@udel.edu or thomas%mvac23@udel.edu uucp : {ucbvax,mcvax,psuvax1,uunet}!udel!mvac23!thomas Europe Bitnet: THOMAS1@GRATHUN1 Location: Newark, DE, USA Quote : Virtual Address eXtension. Is that like a 9-digit zip code? -- The UUCP Mailer