|
Author
|
Topic: Alpha-numeric flight numbering into the 90s
|
Mike Dixon
Member Posts: 1397
From: Kew, Victoria, Australia
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 11-12-2010 06:37 PM
   
A "what if" question ...We're familiar with the interpretation of the alpha numeric flight series employed for the shuttle missions between 41B and 51L ... particularly the first digit marking each year of the decade in question. Assuming NASA retained that confusing system into the 90s, how would they have distinguished the flight numbers from those that applied in the 80s? For example, a 51B in 1985 and the first (or would that have been second?) KSC shuttle flight in 1995? |
cspg
Member Posts: 6210
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 11-13-2010 12:07 AM
I thought the first number corresponded to the fiscal year during which the flight was budgeted, not the year the flight took place (61A and 61B in 1985; 51L in 1986).Interesting question, though. And glad NASA dropped the system. And that the shuttle didn't fly once a week!  |
Hart Sastrowardoyo
Member Posts: 3445
From: Toms River, NJ
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 11-13-2010 05:59 AM
I think I mentioned this before, that a Rockwell planning document had planned flights up to 1989 and 91-T(!)What then of 1990? I would think the first flight of 1990 from KSC would be 101-A - the first two numbers (in this case) would the year of shuttle operations (e.g., 10 years since the first shuttle flight), followed by the usual nomenclature for launch site and payload code. In your example, then, 51-B would be 1985 and a second KSC flight in 1995 would then be 151-B. |
Greggy_D
Member Posts: 977
From: Michigan
Registered: Jul 2006
|
posted 11-13-2010 04:16 PM
From the documents that I can recall, NASA's fiscal year began July 1st. (At least it did back in the early-80s.)So July 1st, 1985 was actually fiscal year 1986. |
dogcrew5369
Member Posts: 750
From: Statesville, NC
Registered: Mar 2009
|
posted 11-14-2010 06:20 AM
Let me take a stab at this. Using the first mission with the "new" numbering system, STS-41B, as our guide, we can figure out all the information we need from the "41B" part of the mission number. The first digit, 4, was to designate the last digit of the fiscal year in which that particular mission was originally scheduled to launch. The fiscal year starts on October 1, not July 1. Thus, STS-41B was initially scheduled to launch in 1984. The second digit, 1, designated which launch site was to be used, 1 for KSC, and 2 for VAFB. Therefore, STS-41B was scheduled to launch from KSC. Finally, the third character denoted the sequential position the launch occupied in the launch schedule: A = 1, B = 2, C = 3, and so on. So, STS-41B was designated as the second launch of the fiscal year. STS-41B was originally scheduled to be the second Shuttle launch of fiscal 1984 (Oct.1, 1983 through Sept.30, 1984), from KSC. STS-9, the previous mission, had launched on November 28, 1983, which made it the first launch of fiscal 1984. Which still brings up the question of what would differentiate 1984 from 1994, or even 2004? |
dogcrew5369
Member Posts: 750
From: Statesville, NC
Registered: Mar 2009
|
posted 11-14-2010 06:41 AM
Here is a shuttle flight manifest released in November 1985 that flies out until the end of 1988. |
Hart Sastrowardoyo
Member Posts: 3445
From: Toms River, NJ
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 11-14-2010 07:23 AM
quote:
Originally posted by dogcrew5369:
Which still brings up the question of what would differentiate 1984 from 1994, or even 2004?
Again, somewhere along the line this would have to change, where the first number is the last digital of the fiscal year the flight was planned to launch (say that three times fast.) There's nothing wrong with after 1989 having the first two digits represent the year of shuttle operations, rather than the fiscal or calendar year. Had the system continued to 2004, then, I don't see a problem with having a 241-A. By the way, I've seen the website with a list of canceled flights, but is there an actual source document - either a release or a newspaper article - on the web which has such a list? It's a minor point, but I'm working on a future article and wanted to see if I could get a definitive answer as to how many flights were planned for 1986 after 51L (calendar year) and what mission the Journalist-in-Space was planned for. I've seen both 61I and 61L. |
ctoddb
Member Posts: 15
From: Fontana, CA USA
Registered: Mar 2007
|
posted 11-29-2010 01:48 PM
I'm sure it would have changed back to the flight number eventually, as it is now. Remember that the whole reason they even WENT to the "41B" type of designation was simply to avoid having an "STS-13" after what had happened with Apollo 13. It seems ridiculous now, and I don't know which group(s) was/were the superstitious lot. The pilots/astronauts? The mission control team? The support team? The administrators? I have no clue. But it would have changed back once they realized how confusing the "41B" form of mission designations was getting. |
dogcrew5369
Member Posts: 750
From: Statesville, NC
Registered: Mar 2009
|
posted 12-03-2010 06:45 PM
quote:
Originally posted by ctoddb:
Remember that the whole reason they even WENT to the "41B" type of designation was simply to avoid having an "STS-13" after what had happened with Apollo 13.
Glad NASA didn't want to come up with a ridiculous system to avoid Expedition 13. Last I checked that mission went off without too much of a problem. |
Skylon
Member Posts: 274
From:
Registered: Sep 2010
|
posted 12-05-2010 04:41 PM
Ironically Expedition 13 saw ISS Assembly resume after the Columbia disaster, and was the first three man crew since Expedition 6. "13" was quite lucky, as NASA had been hoping for Station Assembly to resume and to go back to a three man crew as far back as Expedition 9 or 10. |
dogcrew5369
Member Posts: 750
From: Statesville, NC
Registered: Mar 2009
|
posted 12-06-2010 10:09 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Skylon:
"13" was quite lucky, as NASA had been hoping for Station Assembly to resume and to go back to a three man crew as far back as Expedition 9 or 10.
Exactly. Any way you want to hide a 13th mission label, it would none the less still be the 13th mission no matter what. Maybe NASA should have been more concerned with O-rings instead of numbering systems back in the early 80's. |
webhamster
Member Posts: 106
From: Ottawa, Canada
Registered: Jul 2008
|
posted 12-07-2010 03:18 PM
quote:
Originally posted by ctoddb:
Remember that the whole reason they even WENT to the "41B" type of designation was simply to avoid having an "STS-13" after what had happened with Apollo 13.
The whole "to avoid STS-13" is a bit of an urban legend. The system was put in place so that Vandenberg launches would be numerically differentiated from KSC launches... and down the road if a third or fourth launch site ever came online. Remember, they were gearing up for an ambitious schedule that would have had (they hoped) close to 50 flights a year by the early 90's, the numbering was going to quickly spiral up. That it never worked out that way, that Vandenberg launches were canceled, the fact that everything reverted after Challenger, and the fact that it happened to come into place not long before STS-13 would have flown all contribute to the urban legend that it was done solely to prevent having an STS-13. If anything it was nothing more than a happy by-product for the superstitious.
|
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 12-07-2010 03:38 PM
quote:
Originally posted by webhamster:
The whole "to avoid STS-13" is a bit of an urban legend.
I initially thought that as well, but not so according to several astronauts' NASA oral histories. Bob Crippen: Of course, I mentioned it was 41-C that originally it was STS-13, and my friend Jim [James M.] Beggs, who was the Administrator of NASA, had triskaidekaphobia, and he said, "There's not going to be [another] Apollo 13 or a Shuttle 13, so come up with a new numbering system." So we did come up with this complex system for numbering the Shuttles during that period of time.Terry Hart: We actually came out as STS-13. It was in the manifest and everything. Then all of a sudden, like three or four months later, there was an edict that was coming down from [NASA] Headquarters [Washington, D.C.] that they were going to change the numbering system. And we said, "Why are they doing that?" No one would say anything, but we were sure the reason that we were doing it was because they didn't want to fly on STS-13. And it turned out that the way the calendars were falling, we were supposed to launch on April 13th, which was a Friday, in 1984. So it was kind of lining up just like Apollo 13 and I think they said, "We're not going to do this." Paul Weitz: Mr. [James M.] Beggs, who was the Administrator of NASA, apparently suffered from -- I use the term "suffer," but experienced triskaidekaphobia. He didn't like the number thirteen. So he didn't ever want any mission numbered thirteen, so we went through this system of 51-L. James "Ox" van Hoften: Oh yes, triskaidekaphobia. In fact, you've probably seen the patch that Dick [Francis R.] Scobee put together, the black cat patch. It was funny, because somewhere through our program NASA just decided they didn't want thirteen anymore, and that's when they invented all these goofy other labels, like we ended up 41-C that no one could ever figure out what that was. |
Hart Sastrowardoyo
Member Posts: 3445
From: Toms River, NJ
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 12-07-2010 04:58 PM
Of course, "C" is the third letter of the alphabet, so STS-41C still had a "13" in there.... |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2454
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 12-08-2010 04:29 AM
Why couldn't they have called it '12A'? Or perhaps left it out altogether as they do on a Formula 1 grid? |
Hart Sastrowardoyo
Member Posts: 3445
From: Toms River, NJ
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 12-09-2010 11:35 AM
quote:
Originally posted by moorouge:
Why couldn't they have called it '12A'? Or perhaps left it out altogether as they do on a Formula 1 grid?
With all the payload and crew changes, they would have probably run out of letters in the alphabet. |
webhamster
Member Posts: 106
From: Ottawa, Canada
Registered: Jul 2008
|
posted 12-10-2010 07:12 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
I initially thought that as well, but not so according to several astronauts' NASA oral histories.
I think the truth, as in most cases, probably lies somewhere in the middle. Not that I think anybody is lying or anything but just that nobody really knows the full story of what went on behind the scenes in 1983. It still seems strange to me to go to that extent just to avoid a superstitious number (not being superstitious in the least) but, then, you just consider the number of crazy things the government does and it maybe seems a little more realistic to believe it. I wonder if the whole story will ever be fully known. Now, while we're all wondering if the first KSC launch of 1990 would have been 101-A, what if the program and reliability really were what they thought they were going to be and more shuttles came online? What if there were more than 26 launches from one site in a year? What would have come after STS-101-Z? STS-101-AA? STS-101-A1? |
Steve Procter
Member Posts: 1031
From: Leeds, Yorkshire, UK
Registered: Oct 2000
|
posted 12-10-2010 07:22 AM
You couldn't make it up! (As some of our more populist/sensationalist newspapers over here like to say...)All the time, effort, cost and angst playing around with numbers. (!) I'll bet at the time if the NASA administrators had planned an STS-13 and were seeking astronauts to volunteer for it they would have been trampled in the rush! |
advertisement