mears@hpindda.HP.COM (David B. Mears) (09/08/89)
A few weeks ago I read an article in the San Jose (Ca.) Mercury News about the upcoming shuttle flight to retrieve the LDEF. (I've been meaning to post this since then, but have been both busy and out of the country.) The byline for the story, entitled ``Shuttle will try to save satellite from fiery death'', simply has the byline of New York Times. I quote a couple of paragraphs from the middle of the article. NASA is putting two shuttles on launching pads for the rescue mission in case of a hold-up for either one. It may also ask the Defense Department to postpone a shuttle missions [sic] this year so the NASA rescue attempt can be moved up to November. ``We'd like to demonstrate that we have a dependable spacecraft we can use for routine servicing,'' said Dr. William H. Kinard, chief scientist for the wayward craft, at NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va. This is the first time I've ever heard any hint at the possibility of getting two shuttles ready for launch on separate pads. Since I haven't heard anything in this forum about this, I assume that the NYT got their story mixed up, but I thought I'd post and get people's reactions. David B. Mears Hewlett-Packard Cupertino CA hplabs!hpda!mears mears@hpda.HP.COM
leech@alanine.cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Leech) (09/09/89)
In article <3330022@hpindda.HP.COM> mears@hpindda.HP.COM (David B. Mears) writes: >I quote a couple of paragraphs from the middle of the article. > NASA is putting two shuttles on launching pads for the > rescue mission in case of a hold-up for either one. > ... > ``We'd like to demonstrate that we have a dependable > spacecraft we can use for routine servicing,'' said Dr. > William H. Kinard, chief scientist for the wayward craft, > at NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va. I bet they'd like to, considering how overblown their original claims have turned out to be, but I don't see how having a backup shuttle demonstrates anything positive about dependability. -- Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu) __@/ "I met a wonderful new man. He's fictional, but you can't have everything." - Cecelia, _The Purple Rose of Cairo_
kendalla@pooter.WV.TEK.COM (Kendall Auel;685-2425;61-028;;pooter) (09/09/89)
I heard a reference to the LDEF retrieval mission while listening to Larry King's radio show. He had as his guest a former director of JPL. A woman called up and wanted to know if the LDEF was so big that they needed two shuttles to retrieve it. The guest's comment was that it was placed in orbit by a shuttle, so obviously one shuttle could also bring it back home. He didn't mention anything about (didn't know about?) preparing two shuttles in case a backup was needed. Kendall Auel | kendalla@pooter.WV.TEK.COM Tektronix, Inc. | P.O. Box 1000, m/s 61-028 Visual Systems Group | Wilsonville, Oregon 97070 Interactive Technologies Division | (This message composed on a TEK w/s)
smb@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Steven M. Bellovin) (09/09/89)
In article <3330022@hpindda.HP.COM>, mears@hpindda.HP.COM (David B. Mears) writes: > This is the first time I've ever heard any hint at the possibility of > getting two shuttles ready for launch on separate pads. Since I haven't > heard anything in this forum about this, I assume that the NYT got their > story mixed up, but I thought I'd post and get people's reactions. No, the story was accurate. There are two launch pads; the second was completed (or rather, converted for the shuttle) around the time of the Challenger explosion. Having two launch pads lets them prepare two launches more or less in parallel, though there are some activities, such as preparing the SRBs, that they don't want to do like that for safety reasons. (This was mentioned in the original NY Times article; dunno if your paper picked up the whole story.) There are not sufficient facilities, I believe, to actually launch two within a few days of each other, as was done once during Gemini days, but a lot of the preparation can be overlapped.
ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) (09/09/89)
In article <12154@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> smb@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Steven M. Bellovin) writes: >There are not sufficient facilities, I believe, to actually launch two >within a few days of each other, as was done once during Gemini days, >but a lot of the preparation can be overlapped. Well, I was reading the January '86 issue of Astronomy several years ago, and it had a list of the next dozen launches (The Challenger accident didn't make it into print for this issue...) of the shuttle that were planned. If memory serves, they were either going to have two shuttles in orbit at once, or were going to have one shuttle launched the day after another had landed...they only gave launch dates, not landing dates. Of course, things have probably changed... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Matthew DeLuca : Practice creates perfection Georgia Institute of Technology : Perfection creates power ARPA: ccoprmd@hydra.gatech.edu : Power conquers law ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (09/10/89)
In article <12154@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> smb@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Steven M. Bellovin) writes: >... There are two launch pads; the second >was completed (or rather, converted for the shuttle) around the time >of the Challenger explosion... In fact, flight 51L was the first shuttle use of pad 39B. There were some speculations about obscure mechanisms by which the choice of pad might have contributed to the disaster, but nothing ever came of those. -- V7 /bin/mail source: 554 lines.| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 1989 X.400 specs: 2200+ pages. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (09/10/89)
In article <1770@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes: >...reading the January '86 issue of Astronomy... >... they were either going to have two shuttles in orbit at once, or were >going to have one shuttle launched the day after another had landed... Probably the latter, and probably that was in early summer 1986. The schedule then was very tight because both Galileo and Ulysses were going to go into the same launch window for Jupiter. That plan got changed... -- V7 /bin/mail source: 554 lines.| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 1989 X.400 specs: 2200+ pages. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) (09/10/89)
In article <1989Sep9.220015.19178@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <1770@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes: >>...reading the January '86 issue of Astronomy... >>... they were either going to have two shuttles in orbit at once, or were >>going to have one shuttle launched the day after another had landed... > >Probably the latter, and probably that was in early summer 1986. The >schedule then was very tight because both Galileo and Ulysses were going >to go into the same launch window for Jupiter. That plan got changed... Why didn't they use this setup to launch both Galileo and Magellan into the prime Venus launch window? _______________________________________________________________________________ Brian Yamauchi University of Rochester yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu Computer Science Department _______________________________________________________________________________
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (09/10/89)
In article <1989Sep10.005129.6223@cs.rochester.edu> yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu.UUCP (Brian Yamauchi) writes: >>Probably the latter, and probably that was in early summer 1986. The >>schedule then was very tight because both Galileo and Ulysses were going >>to go into the same launch window for Jupiter. That plan got changed... > >Why didn't they use this setup to launch both Galileo and Magellan >into the prime Venus launch window? Because NASA is no longer at all happy about crowding the schedule like that. (They weren't terribly happy about it then, actually, but now it is utterly unacceptable.) -- V7 /bin/mail source: 554 lines.| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 1989 X.400 specs: 2200+ pages. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
fisher@moon.dec.com (09/13/89)
In article <12154@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com>, smb@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Steven M. Bellovin) writes: > > In article <3330022@hpindda.HP.COM>, mears@hpindda.HP.COM (David B. Mears) writes: > > This is the first time I've ever heard any hint at the possibility of > > getting two shuttles ready for launch on separate pads. Since I haven't > > heard anything in this forum about this, I assume that the NYT got their > > story mixed up, but I thought I'd post and get people's reactions. > > No, the story was accurate. There are two launch pads; the second > was completed (or rather, converted for the shuttle) around the time > of the Challenger explosion. Having two launch pads lets them prepare > two launches more or less in parallel, though there are some activities, > such as preparing the SRBs, that they don't want to do like that for > safety reasons. (This was mentioned in the original NY Times article; > dunno if your paper picked up the whole story.) > > There are not sufficient facilities, I believe, to actually launch two > within a few days of each other, as was done once during Gemini days, > but a lot of the preparation can be overlapped. It is true that there are 2 pads. That does not make the story accurate. I have not heard of the suggestion that they would have two shuttles at the pad at the same time for LDEF retrieval, although I would be willing to stand corrected. What I DO know is that they have never used both pads in parallel. As Henry noted in another message, 51L was the first launch to use pad 39B. All 24 previous launches used 39A. All shuttles since 51L have used 39B. 39A was shut down for modifications. I don't know when it will be ready for use again. There are, of course, parallel shuttle preparations, as the daily shuttle status reports indicate. Burns Fisher
garym@crash.cts.com (Gary Morris) (09/13/89)
>>... they were either going to have two shuttles in orbit at once, or were >>going to have one shuttle launched the day after another had landed... > Might have been practical if the launch facility at Vandenburg had ever been completed. --GaryM -- Gary Morris uunet!ucsd!telesoft!garym TeleSoft, San Diego telesoft!garym@ucsd.ucsd.edu (619) 457-2700 garym@crash.cts.com
mcdowell@cfa250.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) (09/13/89)
From article <1455@hiatus.dec.com>, by fisher@moon.dec.com:
> What I DO know is that they have never used both pads in parallel.
Sorry! 51L/Challenger was already on 39B when 61C/Columbia left for
orbit from 39A. So there were two on-pad shuttles at once. STS-32 is
due to use 39A, and might well be on the pad at the same time as
STS-33 is on 39B. However, the news story was confused to the extent
that the two shuttles will be on different missions.
Jonathan.fisher@moon.dec.com (09/14/89)
In article <1726@cfa237.cfa250.harvard.edu>, mcdowell@cfa250.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) writes: > From article <1455@hiatus.dec.com>, by fisher@moon.dec.com: > > What I DO know is that they have never used both pads in parallel. > > Sorry! 51L/Challenger was already on 39B when 61C/Columbia left for > orbit from 39A. So there were two on-pad shuttles at once. STS-32 is > due to use 39A, and might well be on the pad at the same time as > STS-33 is on 39B. However, the news story was confused to the extent > that the two shuttles will be on different missions. > > Jonathan. Oops. You caught a slight failure of logic. What I *really* *really* know is that there has been no interleaving of pads. The first 24 were on pad a, the last n have all been on b. In thinking about it 61C and 51L were so close together that it makes sense that they were on the pad at the same time. Thanks for correcting me. Glad to hear that a is being reactivated. Burns Fisher
paterra@cs.odu.edu (Frank C. Paterra) (09/14/89)
In article <355@crash.cts.com>, garym@crash.cts.com (Gary Morris) writes: > >>... they were either going to have two shuttles in orbit at once, or were > >>going to have one shuttle launched the day after another had landed... > > > Might have been practical if the launch facility at Vandenburg had ever > been completed. > --GaryM I think Vandenburg was completed and the Airforce mothballed it immediately. It was my understanding that the post Challenger shuttle configuration does not have enough sauce to launch anything from Vandenburg anyway. Does anybody have any other information? Henry? Frank Paterra paterra@cs.odu.edu
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (09/14/89)
In article <9981@xanth.cs.odu.edu> paterra@cs.odu.edu (Frank C. Paterra) writes: >I think Vandenburg was completed and the Airforce mothballed it >immediately. It was my understanding that the post Challenger shuttle >configuration does not have enough sauce to launch anything from >Vandenburg anyway. Does anybody have any other information? Henry? Payload from Vandenberg was always rather less impressive than from the Cape, given the physics of the situation, and it would probably be pretty small today. I don't have numbers on hand. In any case, the point is moot. The Vandenberg launch facility was completed except for a solution to possible problems with hydrogen buildup in the exhaust duct (not terribly hard problems, but they would need solving before a launch). It is now very thoroughly mothballed and would be quite expensive to revive. Much of the support equipment has dispersed to other uses, the skilled crews have done likewise, and in general the USAF has completely lost interest. -- V7 /bin/mail source: 554 lines.| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 1989 X.400 specs: 2200+ pages. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu