Author
|
Topic: Space shuttle "Launch On Need" numbering
|
moorouge Member Posts: 2454 From: U.K. Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 09-22-2010 03:40 AM
According to Wikipedia several rescue missions were designated, i.e. - - STS-114 / STS-300
- STS-121 / STS-300
- STS-115 / STS-301
- STS-116 / STS-317
- STS-118 / STS-322
- STS-120 / STS-320
- STS-122 / STS-323
- STS-123 / STS-324
- STS-124 / STS-326
- STS-125 / STS-400*
- STS-134 / STS-335
* Hubble repair flight requiring a different orbit from ISS flights.I have queries regarding this list. Can anyone explain the logic behind the numbering, e.g. why the jump from 301 to 317? Were there crews selected for these missions and if so who were they? If there weren't crews nominated, how did NASA propose to crew them if needed at short notice? Would a nominated rescue crew be allowed their own mission patch? |
KSCartist Member Posts: 2896 From: Titusville, FL USA Registered: Feb 2005
|
posted 09-22-2010 04:48 AM
I can't speak for the numbering system but I can confirm that the crew would have been allowed to have their own patch. It would have not been released or adopted unless they were committed to fly.As I recall the CDR, PLT and two EVA MS astronauts of the most recently flown crew would be assigned to be the four member LON crew for a rescue. I assume it would be because they would be ahead of the training curve having just completed a mission.
|
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 42988 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 09-22-2010 08:02 AM
Since STS-124 (with the exception of STS-125), the Launch On Need (LON) crew has been the four flight deck members from the next mission in line to fly. The space station was significantly stocked with supplies such that any shuttle crew taking "safe haven" there could wait until the launch window for the next mission.Prior to that, as Tim wrote, the flight deck crew of the prior mission stood in as the LON crew for the next flight. As for the numbering, originally NASA intended for all LON missions to carry the same designation, STS-300 (until presumably, it flew). I believe that changed when it became necessary for planning manifests to distinguish between different orbiters being reserved for different launch on need assignments (e.g. Atlantis was still serving as the STS-300 vehicle for STS-121 when an updated manifest showed Endeavour assigned to STS-301 to support STS-115). |
Hart Sastrowardoyo Member Posts: 3445 From: Toms River, NJ Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 09-22-2010 10:25 AM
quote: Originally posted by moorouge: According to Wikipedia several rescue missions were designated...
It seems to me some of the LON flight numbers were based on the succeeding flight number. Example: STS-117 was scheduled after STS-116, so the 116 LON became STS-317. Same with STS-122 through 124 and 134.Now if we could only figure out where STS-322 and 320 came from, although it seems to me in the case of 320 that they took the last two numbers of the flight to be rescued and simply added a '3' in front of it. Was STS-122 originally manifested after STS-118? |
David C Member Posts: 1015 From: Lausanne Registered: Apr 2012
|
posted 01-20-2017 02:41 PM
Please can anyone clarify the names of the STS-300 LON crew for STS-114?Without being facetious, it obviously wasn't "the flight deck crew of the prior mission" since that was STS-107. To my way of thinking it seems unlikely to have been Wetherbee's STS-113 team. I'm thinking it was perhaps Lindsey, Mark Kelly, Fossum and Sellers since they were next up. Otherwise Jett and Ferguson, plus either Tanner and Stefanyshyn-Piper or Burbank and MacLean since they were already assigned to Atlantis. |
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 42988 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-20-2017 02:49 PM
According to Spacefacts.de, it was the STS-121 crew members (Lindsey, Kelly, Fossum and Sellers). |
David C Member Posts: 1015 From: Lausanne Registered: Apr 2012
|
posted 01-20-2017 03:15 PM
Thanks Robert. He seems to have all the LON crews except STS-400 as made up from the next mission scheduled, contrary to what was said earlier on this thread. |