Posts: 1179
From: Canada
Registered: Jul 2001

posted 12-12-2008 12:10 PM               

---

Concerning those mission with explicit denominations, such as STS-51L, what's the correct way to say it: "Fifty-one-L", or "Fife-One-L", which to me makes more sense.

------------------
François Guay
Collector of litterature, notebooks, equipment and memories!

Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005

Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

Posts: 729
From: South Carolina
Registered: Jul 2006

posted 12-12-2008 04:45 PM               

---

In support of Robert's correct answer, on the audio from a few minutes before the 51-L launch, you'll hear Hugh Harris say the designation a few times before liftoff on the PAO loop. The one that comes to mind most readily is "...the fifty-one-el mission, ready to go."

CNN's live coverage of the 51-L launch (IIRC, CNN carried the feed from NASA) has popped up on YouTube, and I believe you can hear Harris say it there a time or two before liftoff. It's been a while since I watched it, but I do believe it's there.

jodie

Posts: 1179
From: Canada
Registered: Jul 2001

Posts: 106
From: Ottawa, Canada
Registered: Jul 2008

posted 12-13-2008 06:50 PM            

---

I don't think there was much about that numbering system that made any sense anyway. Least of all a plan for 1990 (I know people think it would have been 101-A, etc but that's not stated anywhere). Plus it was supposed to "fix" the problem of out of sequence mission numbering but then ended up all out of order anyway and then starting over again at A for Vandenberg launches...

So confusing it had to come from a bureaucrat's desk.

Posts: 3445
From: Toms River, NJ
Registered: Aug 2000

posted 12-15-2008 04:23 PM               

---

Well, it made sense to me... The first number was the fiscal year of launch, the second the launch site, and then the letter describing the numerical equivalent of flights. It only didn't make sense when flights were canceled, e.g., 51L was not the 12th flight launched in FY 1985, although it was the 12th planned.

As of 1984 I had schedules only five years out, with 91T and 92D for 1989 flights - that would have been 20 out of KSC and 4 from Vandenberg.

Still, the numbering in order flights, even if they are skipped occasionally, is the simplest, even if the first Return to Flight should have been STS-34 and not STS-26 (or more correctly, STS-26R....)

Posts: 106
From: Ottawa, Canada
Registered: Jul 2008

posted 12-16-2008 01:21 PM            

---

It seems to me that it was one problem NASA had in the mid-eighties. They really lost touch with simplicity and the magic of spaceflight and the numbering scheme was just one of the symptoms. Seriously believing that a layman would care about the fiscal offset, launch site, and a letter indicating planned sequence always struck me as "Attack Of The Bureaucrats". That, and trying to make spaceflight seem "routine"...

24 flights a year? I knew it was a high number being planned but did they really believe they could launch missions every 2 weeks? That's a "wow" right there when you really absorb it. Assuming that schedule held and they were no disasters (which there would have been) we'd right now be looking forward to something like STS-543...or STS-291A (?)

Posts: 3445
From: Toms River, NJ
Registered: Aug 2000

posted 12-16-2008 02:30 PM               

---

There were 9 flights in 1985, and NASA planned to really ramp it up in 1986, even with the cancelation of Mission 61D (Spacelab 4.)

The "wow" factor really kicks in when you realize they were forecasting the 24 flights only five years in advance - and really, with three Orbiters, since Discovery would have been based at Vandenberg.

Just off the top of my head, if the Shuttle flights were just that - four day missions to launch satellites - it might have been doable, despite the many ways to launch a satellite from Shuttle. But extending Shuttle flights to at least seven days, and adding other objectives to the mission, means that every Shuttle flight was/is now mission-specific, taking the routine out of the equation.

Posts: 106
From: Ottawa, Canada
Registered: Jul 2008

Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005

posted 12-16-2008 04:56 PM               

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by webhamster:
It seems to me that it was one problem NASA had in the mid-eighties. They really lost touch with simplicity and the magic of spaceflight and the numbering scheme was just one of the symptoms.

---

I have to agree. Not only did the numbering system show a lack of inspiration, but the name of the program itself showed very little imagination. "Space Transportation System" not only lacks the majesty of names like Mercury, Gemini, or Apollo...but it sounds like a purposeful attempt to take any romance out of spaceflight and make the program sound about as exciting as a commuter flight. I guess, however, that falls in line with NASA's attempt to make spaceflight seem more routine and safe.

As for the number of flights that were planned for 1986 and subsequent years, they probably could have maintained such a schedule for a short amount of time until either the budget broke or safety lapsed to the point of causing an accident (assuming Challenger hadn't already proven that point). The shuttle wasn't paying for itself like it was advertised that it would. I think NASA was still fooling itself into thinking they could make the shuttle a more cost-efficient (if not profitable) vehicle if they only learned how to fly it more frequently. Challenger was one lesson of what happens when you stetch a program too far and are more worried about the schedule than you are about safety.

Posts: 106
From: Ottawa, Canada
Registered: Jul 2008

posted 12-16-2008 08:42 PM            

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mjanovec:
I have to agree. Not only did the numbering system show a lack of inspiration, but the name of the program itself showed very little imagination. "Space Transportation System" not only lacks the majesty of names like Mercury, Gemini, or Apollo...but it sounds like a purposeful attempt to take any romance out of spaceflight and make the program sound about as exciting as a commuter flight. I guess, however, that falls in line with NASA's attempt to make spaceflight seem more routine and safe.

---

Very good point. The other problem I see was that there was no real goal to the program that people could wrap their minds around. That's probably what contributed to NASA falling off the public's radar. Now, to be fair, they did lose the space station to Congress back then, and they lost Skylab to delays.

If they set incremental goals (and had the funding) the shuttle could have spanned multiple different "mini-programs" each with an ultimate goal and they probably could have captured people's imaginations much better than they did. Instead they opted for volume which only served to erode safety standards and, it seems to me, deliberately tried to take the "magic" out of spaceflight. But then government agencies have never really been good at the marketing...

They made it seem too easy, too routine, and too aimless in terms of goals. Names and designations are just a symptom of the problem that existed (and I think still exists because I was talking to someone the other day who was utterly unaware that there was a space station in orbit right now...much less the fact that it's been there for 10 years).

Posts: 1306
From: Staten Island, NY
Registered: Jun 2007

posted 12-17-2008 12:41 AM               

---

The numbering system solved one problem, they didn't have to designate a flight STS-13.

-Lou