|
Author
|
Topic: Original shuttle test flight crew assignments
|
Tom
Member Posts: 1127
From: New York
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted January 10, 2010 12:12 PM
   
Back in 1978 the following crews were assigned to the first four shuttle test flights: - Young - Crippen
- Engle - Truly
- Haise - Lousma
- Brand - Fullerton
When Haise retired, STS-3 became Lousma and Fullerton. At the same time STS-4 became Mattingly and Hartsfield.Does anyone know why Mattingly ended up with the fourth flight with Brand moved back to STS-5? |
Delta7
Member Posts: 1036
From: Ossian IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted January 10, 2010 03:47 PM
My GUESS is that it was because it was decided to have the first classified DOD operation on STS-4, and that Mattingly was assigned (with Hartsfield) because he had worked closely with the DOD on their Shuttle requirements. I don't know if this was done before or after Mattingly and Hartsfield were assigned as the backup crew for STS-2 and/or STS-3, which may or may not have been another factor. |
webhamster
Member Posts: 100
From: Ottawa, Canada
Registered: Jul 2008
|
posted January 11, 2010 11:07 AM
Also, Brand was not active-duty military (and had not been for some time). If you look at all the DOD missions, every crew member was active-duty military.I think it was also a bit of a numbers game to have veteran CDR's. The DOD payload probably just cemented the order. |
hoorenz
Member Posts: 536
From: The Netherlands
Registered: Jan 2003
|
posted January 11, 2010 01:11 PM
quote:
Originally posted by webhamster:
If you look at all the DOD missions, every crew member was active-duty military.
K.T. Thornton / Story Musgrave STS-33 were civilians.
|
webhamster
Member Posts: 100
From: Ottawa, Canada
Registered: Jul 2008
|
posted January 11, 2010 01:25 PM
quote:
Originally posted by hoorenz:
K.T. Thornton / Story Musgrave STS-33 were civilians.
I stand corrected. I forgot about those two. However, the general rule was military only on DOD flights. |
Delta7
Member Posts: 1036
From: Ossian IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted January 11, 2010 01:38 PM
Lacey Veach, Rick Hieb and Greg Harbaugh were also civilians who flew on a DOD mission (STS-38), although most aspects of the mission were not classified. |
Michael Cassutt
Member Posts: 215
From: Studio City CA USA
Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted January 12, 2010 11:27 PM
This story has gotten a bit muddy. I've actually spoken with Mattingly and Hartsfield in the past year, and may be able to clear things up.In reverse order, there was no official policy that "DOD" Shuttle crews had to be active duty military. Hartsfield was retired at the time of STS-4. Thornton, Musgrave and others have been noted. Four two-man crews were announced for the OFT program in March 1978 -- as given. But there were two other crews in the works... an E crew of Mattingly-Hartsfield and an F crew of Weitz and likely Overmyer. No one seems to remember, since they were paper crews only, put together when the OFT program was supposed to be six missions. Mattingly had no input into the assignment of Hartsfield as his pilot -- was simply called into Abbey's office and told Hank was on his crew. (He was happy with the choice.) One crew was slotted to backup both STS-2 and STS-3 from 1978 on, when STS-3 was still manifested as Haise-Lousma on Skylab rescue, though it wasn't that clear to the 3 crew. (Lousma and Fullerton were training for 3 when Mattingly and Hartsfield joined them at some facility outside JSC, and the prime crew wondered if they were being replaced....) Mattingly-Hartsfield were given the STS-2 and 3 backup job in anticipation of STS-4... partly because it was a catchall mission. (The payload had been locked in to June 1982 as early as 1979 and was not part of the original OFT manifest. As the OFT flights slipped to the right, STS-4's assignment remained fixed.) The DOD aspect did give Mattingly a slight edge over Brand or Weitz -- Mattingly had been astro office lead for such matters. Does that help?
Michael Cassutt
|
Delta7
Member Posts: 1036
From: Ossian IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted January 13, 2010 09:11 AM
And of course, the change could have simply been due to the fact that GWSA woke up one morning and decided it would be so, no rhyme, reason or explanation given. |
Tom
Member Posts: 1127
From: New York
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted January 13, 2010 04:17 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Cassutt:
Does that help?
Absolutely... thanks Michael, for the very informative explanation.
|
Hart Sastrowardoyo
Member Posts: 1508
From: Toms River, NJ,USA
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted January 15, 2010 10:48 AM
I seem to recall that if there was a need for OFT-5 and -6, that those would be flown by the crews of OFT-1 and -2, respectively. Am I imagining this?And just out of curiosity... if veteran astronauts were getting the nod for the CDR slot on the OFTs, why not Bean? |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 1566
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted January 15, 2010 12:49 PM
By that point, Bean as I understand it was planning to leave NASA and become an artist. As such, he apparently took himself voluntarily out of the running for a shuttle CDR seat assignment. |
Delta7
Member Posts: 1036
From: Ossian IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted January 15, 2010 08:36 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Hart Sastrowardoyo:
I seem to recall that if there was a need for OFT-5 and -6, that those would be flown by the crews of OFT-1 and -2, respectively. Am I imagining this?
I read the same thing somewhere. There were only 4 designated OFT crews originally, and if the number of flights went beyond 4, the crews would be "recycled". At some point that obviously changed, at least with the addition of Mattingly and Hartsfield. |
Michael Cassutt
Member Posts: 215
From: Studio City CA USA
Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted January 16, 2010 12:10 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Hart Sastrowardoyo:
I seem to recall that if there was a need for OFT-5 and -6, that those would be flown by the crews of OFT-1 and -2, respectively. Am I imagining this?
That version may have been printed somewhere, but the original scheme was to have been Crews A-F on OFT 1-6, with backups running B,E,E,F,A,B."And just out of curiosity... if veteran astronauts were getting the nod for the CDR slot on the OFTs, why not Bean?" Bean was acting chief of the astronaut office while Young was assigned to STS-1 (March 1978 to April 1981). He was widely expected to be named CDR of STS-9, but chose instead to leave NASA. |
OV-105
Member Posts: 527
From: Ridgecrest, CA USA
Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted January 16, 2010 07:11 PM
I would have thought that Bean would have got STS-7 or STS-8 since the PLT's were getting moved over to the left side by then. Also anyone know when they made the call to wear the blue flight suits since you see photos the STS-5 and STS-6 crew's in the OFT type L&E suits. The pics might have been done even before STS-1. |
Lunar_module_5
Member Posts: 122
From: Wales, UK
Registered: Dec 2004
|
posted January 22, 2010 05:54 PM
I seem to remember at the time reading that Bean was possibly in-line to CDR STS-9/Spacelab 1 but that Young got it instead and probably would have done anyway even if Bean was eligible. |
Greggy_D
Member Posts: 431
From: Michigan
Registered: Jul 2006
|
posted January 22, 2010 06:05 PM
quote:
Originally posted by OV-105:
Also anyone know when they made the call to wear the blue flight suits since you see photos the STS-5 and STS-6 crew's in the OFT type L&E suits.
The crew portrait of STS-5 was taken on 8/31/1982 (less than a few months before the flight). |
OV-105
Member Posts: 527
From: Ridgecrest, CA USA
Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted January 22, 2010 10:34 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Greggy_D:
The crew portrait of STS-5 was taken on 8/31/1982 (less than a few months before the flight).
There are solo portraits of the STS-5 and STS-6 crewmebers in the OFT style flight suits. |
328KF
Member Posts: 609
From:
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted January 22, 2010 11:30 PM
The reason for the change in the flight suit configuration on STS-5 was that there was a crew of 4, and only 2 ejection seats. As a result, the existing seats were disarmed, but the CDR and PLT still had to wear the orange David Clark pressure suit harness which interfaced with the ejection seats. So on that one flight, MS-1 and MS-2 wore the blue one-piece flight suits (not the two piece ones from the crew photo) with the new custom blue vest harness, while the two pilots wore the "hybrid" type configuration. I believe that STS-5 was the only flight flown in this manner, as STS-6, 7, and 8 were flown on Challenger which never had ejection seats installed. By the time John Young took Columbia up again on STS-9, the seats had all been removed and converted to the then-standard type of seat and all crewmembers wore the light blue one-piece coverall suit. |
OV-105
Member Posts: 527
From: Ridgecrest, CA USA
Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted January 23, 2010 12:43 AM
On STS-5 all for were in the blue fight suits. The ejection seats were not removed from Columbia until after STS-9 when she went back to Palmdale in early 1984. The seats were deactivated on STS-5 and STS-9. The crew photos for STS-5 and STS-6 the crews are wearing their inflight wear. |
Lunar_module_5
Member Posts: 122
From: Wales, UK
Registered: Dec 2004
|
posted January 23, 2010 01:03 AM
Whilst on the subject of astronauts in early OFT type suits - McNair, Gregory and Bluford had a photo taken in them. I have the full 8x10 NASA picture in my collection but could only find this online. |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 1566
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted January 24, 2010 03:49 PM
There was a crazy contingency plan being considered at the time that potentially would have had all the astronauts wearing the EES suits for ascent, and when the CDR and PLT punched out, the MSes would have tried to bail out through the openings in the flight deck. Apparently the pilot astronauts who heard about this considered it too much of a crap shoot and felt that it was better to just ride the ship in if it came to that. To my knowledge, STS-5 and 6 just had the blue suits for the pilots, not the EES suits.If you look at several of the crew portraits from that era, even many of the MSes (such as Story Musgrave) wore the EES suits in them. EDIT: Minor clarification. The suits used for the flight test program were called "Ejection Escape Suits" or EES, as opposed to LES, which were the launch escape suits employed after Challenger (eventually replaced by the "Advanced Crew Escape Suit" or ACES) |
Greggy_D
Member Posts: 431
From: Michigan
Registered: Jul 2006
|
posted January 24, 2010 03:55 PM
Those pics of the veteran astronauts in the OFTs were taken in 1980 IIRC. |
webhamster
Member Posts: 100
From: Ottawa, Canada
Registered: Jul 2008
|
posted January 24, 2010 09:10 PM
quote:
Originally posted by 328KF:
So on that one flight, MS-1 and MS-2 wore the blue one-piece flight suits (not the two piece ones from the crew photo) with the new custom blue vest harness, while the two pilots wore the "hybrid" type configuration.
This photo from the STS-5 TCDT would seem to confirm what you're saying in that it shows Brand in the blue flight suit with the brown harness. |
328KF
Member Posts: 609
From:
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted January 25, 2010 01:13 AM
Thanks for finding that. It is exactly what I remember seeing on that flight. The parachute attach points were an integral part of the David Clark harness, and having them on the suit was the only way of restraining the pilot on the ejection seat.The MS's wore the standard vest, which essentially just held the life preservers and gave ground crews something to grab onto in a rescue of an incapacitated astronaut. The five-point seatbelt (which worked terribly during the Columbia loss of control) was strapped over this. It's hard to believe, knowing what we know now, that we actually used to send our crews into space with so little safety/ survival equipment. |
heng44
Member Posts: 2292
From: Netherlands
Registered: Nov 2001
|
posted January 25, 2010 02:32 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Greggy_D:
Those pics of the veteran astronauts in the OFTs were taken in 1980 IIRC.
1979, to be exact.
|
moorouge
Member Posts: 1089
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted January 25, 2010 04:49 AM
quote:
Originally posted by 328KF:
The five-point seatbelt (which worked terribly during the Columbia loss of control) was strapped over this.
Are there any justifications for this statement? I refer to the 'worked terribly' bit. |
webhamster
Member Posts: 100
From: Ottawa, Canada
Registered: Jul 2008
|
posted January 25, 2010 07:12 AM
quote:
Originally posted by moorouge:
Are there any justifications for this statement? I refer to the 'worked terribly' bit.
In the accident report that was released early last year they noted that the harnesses failed under stress in a way that would have been fatal whether the orbiter broke up or not. They upgraded the harnesses in the three remaining shuttles. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 1089
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted January 25, 2010 08:14 AM
My understanding is that it was not the harness that failed but the inertial tightening mechanism. This is what was modified. Of the recommendations stemming from the report, Hale said that one of the most immediate safety changes incorporated into current space shuttles are inertial wheel lock modifications on crew seats. The mechanism is designed to lock an astronauts seat restraints due to external forces much like the seatbelt of a car locks during a sudden stop or impact, Hale said. But during the Columbia accident, the restraints did not lock as designed, subjecting the astronauts strapped in place to extreme forces and trauma. |
webhamster
Member Posts: 100
From: Ottawa, Canada
Registered: Jul 2008
|
posted January 25, 2010 09:00 AM
I think it's just a terminology thing (harness vs. seatbelt vs. restraint) and we're both talking about the same thing in different ways. Plus I was being quite general. It boils down to the locking mechanism of the restraint failed and has been changed. |
Hart Sastrowardoyo
Member Posts: 1508
From: Toms River, NJ,USA
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted January 25, 2010 02:07 PM
quote:
Originally posted by 328KF:
It's hard to believe, knowing what we know now, that we actually used to send our crews into space with so little safety/ survival equipment.
The key is "what we know now". They were aiming for airliner-type operations with the shuttle, and that itself is telling. After all, you don't equip an Airbus 320 with individual parachutes for each flier, although you do have individual lifevests in the unlikely event of water ditching. They were hoping/believing that the shuttle would have the same maturity level.
|
328KF
Member Posts: 609
From:
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted January 25, 2010 10:06 PM
Obviously we have gotten off the original topic here, but good points have been made concerning the safety of shuttle flight crews. Yes, the inertial reels were a weak link in the restraint system, but in looking at the crew equipment from a survivability standpoint, there are many other weak links and limitations. According to the report mentioned, the helmet design of the pressure suits is far from ideal. It allows the head to move freely inside it, causing blunt force trauma from contact with the helmet itself. NASCAR drivers wear form-fitting helmets, and following the Dale Earnhardt accident, most, if not all, have resorted to wearing the Hans device, which restrains the head and neck from extreme motion and possible spinal cord damage. With all of changes made, it amazes me that NASA made no modifications to this part of the suit. Of course, the Apollo suit design suffered this same design flaw, but following Mercury (a simple parachute) and Gemini (ejection seats), there was never a consideration for the crew bailing out of the spacecraft, and the bubble helmet would serve a dual purpose as EVA equipment. Had an Apollo craft tumbled out of control with the crew suited, the results would have likely been the same as on Columbia. The shuttle was never designed with crew escape in mind. With the bias of hindsight, it is now clear that was a mistake. Riding a hypersonic airplane back through the atmosphere at Mach 25 can never be perfectly safe, but the original design assumed that no scenario existed in which the crew could get out. The current system (seats, harnesses, suits, escape pole) was seen by some as a placebo, with a very limited envelope in which it could work, but it is better than nothing. The Columbia report(s) will benefit the safety of future astronauts in two ways: 1. The ideal design for spaceflight really is the old Apollo ship and LES, with the crew staying in the protection of the spacecraft during launch aborts and re-entry and landing, and 2. The new suit designs will incorporate the lessons learned from the investigation to enhance the body and head/ neck restraint to minimize the possibility of injury. |
advertisement