[net.columbia] Satellite deployal and bad-weather launch

wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (08/28/85)

[Will somebody please fix the gateway between net.columbia and the
ARPA Space Digest? The Digest hasn't had net.columbia-originated
postings in it for months, it seems! Thanks!]

The TV news stories on the Australian satellite said that, due to the
jammed sunshield and the consequent overexposure to sunlight, that
satellite was deployed a day ahead of time. My question is: if it could
be launched when it was -- that is, there was an earlier launch window
for the required orbit -- why was it planned to delay the extra day in
the first place? I would think that it would be in everyone's best
interests to get those satellites out of the cargo bay and into orbit
ASAP. What, if anything, was changed by deploying this satellite "a day
early" -- were some checkouts rushed, or other experiment start-ups
delayed, or other undesireable effects incurred by this action?

Re the launch through marginal weather -- we have had the long
discussion on the net about the tiles getting damaged by rain, so I
could see that that would be a good reason to not launch in the rain.
(But would the shuttle be moving fast enough at early stages in the
takeoff, when it would pass through the rain, that there would be ill
effects? This is much slower than the speed when piggybacked on the 747
until it gains speed at higher altitudes, right?)

But won't the system, to be a viable "space truck", eventually have to
be operable during adverse weather conditions? I could see that it would
have to function under the same degree of inclement weather that
commercial aircraft operate under -- if the weather isn't bad enough
to close the airport, the planes still take off and land, using
instrument assistance. Would not the Shuttle have to function in similar
conditions? You can't just indefinitely postpone supply runs for the
Space Station, or ordnance delivery for an SDI system, the way you can
put off commercial satellite launches and scientific experiments.

Is it just that this is too early in the test & development cycle? Are
there plans (weather cooperating, and at some future time) for takeoffs
and landings in various degrees of bad weather, to test the systems'
operation in such situations? It is not impossible that some future
mission might require an emergency landing in the rain somewhere, after
all, so I would think that it should be tested out.

Comments welcomed!

Regards,
Will Martin

UUCP/USENET: seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin   or   ARPA/MILNET: wmartin@almsa-1.ARPA

alb@alice.UucP (Adam L. Buchsbaum) (08/30/85)

There are no plans now to purposely launch or land shuttles in
inclement weather.  For one thing, we know that the tiles absorb
water.  If launched in a rainstorm, that water would be carried
into orbit (1) making the craft heavier and placing it in a lower
orbit than planned and (2) the water would freeze in space and
then melt again during reentry; that wouldn't be good at all for
the tiles.  As for a practice bad weather landing, the proposal that
someday it will become necessary is not true.  There are backup
landing sites all over the world.  Plus, the shuttle can, in dire
emergency, land at almost any international airport.  So there are
enough spots to land so that at least one will be dry.

les@kitc.UUCP (Les Johnson) (08/31/85)

In article <4241@alice.UUCP> alb@alice.UucP (Adam L. Buchsbaum) writes:
>If launched in a rainstorm, that water would be carried
>into orbit (1) making the craft heavier and placing it in a lower
>orbit than planned and (2) the water would freeze in space and
>then melt again during reentry; 

Wouldn't the ice boil off in the (relative) vacuum of space? 
Freeze dried tiles! :-)

Les Johnson @ kitc!les

scott@ubvax.UUCP (Scott Scheiman) (09/04/85)

--
> There are no plans now to purposely launch or land shuttles in
> inclement weather.  For one thing, we know that the tiles absorb
> water.  If launched in a rainstorm, that water would be carried
> into orbit....

Then what about water absorbed by the tiles while the shuttle is sitting
on the ground?  Or doesn't it rain in Florida :-?
-- 
"Ribbit!"     Scott Scheiman (Beam Me Up, Scotty!)   Industrial Networking Inc.
  `/\/@\/@\/\  ..decvax!decwrl!sun!megatest!ubvax!scott    3990 Freedom Circle
  _\ \ -  / /_           (408) 496-0969                 Santa Clara, CA 95050

henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (09/05/85)

There were doubts raised a while ago, in fact, about the choice of KSC
as preferred landing site.  The weather there is often poor.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry