|
Author
|
Topic: STS-300
|
DavidH
Member Posts: 1217
From: Huntsville, AL, USA
Registered: Jun 2003
|
posted 03-21-2005 09:27 AM
   
The AP put together a decent article this weekend about the efforts to prepare a Shuttle rescue mission for STS-114.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050319/ap_on_sc/astronauts_to_the_rescue_1 (Though I have to question what criteria Dunn used in making her claim that " Never before in 44 years of human spaceflight has NASA gone to such lengths to have a spaceship ready to rush to another's assistance.") ------------------
http://allthese worlds.hatbag.net/space.php
"America's challenge of today has forged man's destiny of tomorrow." - Commander Eugene Cernan, Apollo 17 Mission, 11 December 1972 |
sfurtaw
Member Posts: 104
From: Saginaw, MI USA
Registered: Feb 2004
|
posted 03-21-2005 10:17 AM
I wondered the same thing. What about the Skylab rescue mission with Brand and Lind?
------------------
Scott Furtaw
In Memoriam: The Astronaut/Cosmonaut Memorial Web Site
www.astronautmemorial.net |
Hart Sastrowardoyo
Member Posts: 3445
From: Toms River, NJ
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 03-21-2005 10:44 AM
Not to be ridiculous, but what if there's a problem with STS-300? Do they then prep Endeavour for launch? And will they continue the standby crew concept past STS-114, where the next crew to fly is the current rescue crew? |
DavidH
Member Posts: 1217
From: Huntsville, AL, USA
Registered: Jun 2003
|
posted 03-21-2005 10:58 AM
I imagine it would be problematic to mount a rescue mission to the rescue mission; supporting 13 astronauts on ISS for any amount of time and then carrying 15 people on the Shuttle would push each to their limits. That said, I can't imagine that NASA wouldn't try something in that situation.That said, it does seem unlikely that there would be critical, LOV-level problems on three subsequent missions. I believe that STS-301 is already being planned as a rescue mission for STS-121, with four members of the STS-115 crew (next in the launch sequence). Haven't seen any information about rescue missions beyond that. ------------------
http://allthese worlds.hatbag.net/space.php
"America's challenge of today has forged man's destiny of tomorrow." - Commander Eugene Cernan, Apollo 17 Mission, 11 December 1972 |
nasamad
Member Posts: 2121
From: Essex, UK
Registered: Jul 2001
|
posted 03-21-2005 01:40 PM
I'm sorry if I missed something but where do the numbers STS-300 and STS-301 come from ? Thanks......Adam |
KenDavis
Member Posts: 187
From: W.Sussex United Kingdom
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 03-21-2005 02:29 PM
Why do you need four astronauts for a rescue mission? The Shuttle was flown on the first four flights with just a CDR and a PLT. |
KSCartist
Member Posts: 2896
From: Titusville, FL USA
Registered: Feb 2005
|
posted 03-21-2005 07:37 PM
Ken-
The way I understand it. The 3rd & 4th crewmember are for the transfer EVA's. You are correct in that the first four crews were trained to fly and perform any contingency EVA, I guess NASA figured four are an appropriate number.As far as STS-300 and 301 - they were chosen to use numbers way outside of the missions scheduled to complete the ISS. Let's hope a rescue of a rescue is never necessary. Tim |
WAWalsh
Member Posts: 809
From: Cortlandt Manor, NY
Registered: May 2000
|
posted 03-22-2005 12:47 PM
Is this fiction following fact or the other way around?Didn't a similiar jump in numbers occur in "Space Cowboys" (not one of my favorites). I am moving, so the DVD is packed, but my memory has another large jump for Eastwood's team. Accordingly, has NASA had in place for a number of years the idea of jumping mission numbers in the event of an emergency launch, or did they borrow it from Hollywood? |
KenDavis
Member Posts: 187
From: W.Sussex United Kingdom
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 03-22-2005 01:41 PM
Thanks TimLike you I hope the flights are not necessary but if the 3rd & 4th crewmembers are there to perform EVA's I'm still confused. If the Shuttle was damaged it would use the ISS as a safe haven and I am assuming there are sufficient ports to dock two Shuttle and transfer the crew internally - hence no need for EVA trained crew members. If the idea is to transfer the crew externally with the 'aid' of trained EVA personnel, then that sounds a bit like science fiction. Didn't NASA try to develop and then rejected a 'rescue ball' as unfeasible. If the EVA members are there to 'repair' the damaged Shuttle so that it can then be returned to Earth then that sound incredibly dangerous. If another Shuttle was damaged I have assumed NASA would be content to resuce the crew and not try recover the Shuttle so risking the lives of other astronauts. As well as all of that can you actually fit eleven in a Shuttle? |
KenDavis
Member Posts: 187
From: W.Sussex United Kingdom
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 03-22-2005 01:44 PM
Or the other scenario I've just thought of; are the 3rd and 4th crew memebers there in case something goes wrong with the rescue Shuttle (i.e. payload bay doors not closing, and the CDR and PLTs these days are not usually EVA trained? In this case could'n tthe crew already on the ISS perform this EVA? |
KSCartist
Member Posts: 2896
From: Titusville, FL USA
Registered: Feb 2005
|
posted 03-22-2005 01:54 PM
Ken-
First I'm not sure two orbiters could be docked at ISS. Orbiter #1 would have to be docked at the forward PMA with nose facing nadir position and tale facing zenith. PMA 2 is on the port side of Unity node. It would have to be relocated to the nadir side of Unity and Orbiter #2 would have to dock nose facing ISS aft. (I can visualize this but difficult to describe) Remember 6 directions: forward is front, aft is back, port is left, starboard is right, nadir is down and zenith is up.
The EVA rescue would require two astronauts to suit up, transfer to rescue craft, the EVA astronauts would then transfer empty EMU's to damaged orbiter and the process would be repeated until finished.
I think you could fit five on the middeck. I don't believe all eleven could return unless there is a special plan to stack recumbent seats. Maybe there is. Either way the remaining crew members could survive on ISS and return home on another shuttle or Soyuz. I believe all options would be utilized in this case. Maybe others can provide more insight.Tim |
Hart Sastrowardoyo
Member Posts: 3445
From: Toms River, NJ
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 03-22-2005 02:12 PM
Just a thought: With the airlock now being external rather than internal, wouldn't that free up space for extra seats? Five can fit on middeck, as per Mission 61A, but I think it'd be tight if they squeezed in two more seats. |
DavidH
Member Posts: 1217
From: Huntsville, AL, USA
Registered: Jun 2003
|
posted 03-22-2005 02:35 PM
The movie Space Cowboys did feature the STS-200 mission, though I don't know that it was because they were skipping flights rather than just because they wanted to pick one that wouldn't be used soon.According to the article, in the event of the rescue mission, the first Orbiter would be undocked for deorbiting, making room for the second orbiter to dock; so both would not be docked at the same time. It also states that all 11 crewmembers would return on the flight. No doubt it would be tight, but there are worse things than a cramped flight home. (And it seems to me that it would still have to be better than the modified five-person Skylab rescue vehicle, but I could be wrong.) ------------------
http://allthese worlds.hatbag.net/space.php
"America's challenge of today has forged man's destiny of tomorrow." - Commander Eugene Cernan, Apollo 17 Mission, 11 December 1972 |
Glint
Member Posts: 1040
From: New Windsor, Maryland USA
Registered: Jan 2004
|
posted 03-22-2005 03:02 PM
quote:
Originally posted by KenDavis:
Thanks Tim....If the Shuttle was damaged it would use the ISS as a safe haven and I am assuming there are sufficient ports to dock two Shuttle and transfer the crew internally - hence no need for EVA trained crew members. ....If the EVA members are there to 'repair' the damaged Shuttle so that it can then be returned to Earth then that sound incredibly dangerous. If another Shuttle was damaged I have assumed NASA would be content to resuce the crew and not try recover the Shuttle so risking the lives of other astronauts....
Well, if there were two damaged shuttles and they were damaged in different ways (for instance one had wing damage and the other had tile damage) then there should be enough spare parts to get back at least one of them, right?  It would still require the launch of a third shuttle to haul up the concrete blocks and the 3rd and 4th crew members to jack it up and slide them underneath. 
|
OV-105
Member Posts: 816
From: Ridgecrest, CA
Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted 03-22-2005 08:01 PM
I thought that they were just going to use STS-300 for the Rescue flight number if they ever had to fly it. As for a crew of 11 on the way back that would be cramped on the mid deck once they landed. Why they want a crew of 4 on the up hill leg, since STS-5 one of the MS's has been used as a flight engineer for launch and landing and the crews have trained that way since 1982. They are used to haveing that extra set of eyes. If they are working a problem and it will take all three on the flight deck one could go down and get ready for the bailout ops if needed (another very bad day). |
advertisement