Space News
space history and artifacts articles

Messages
space history discussion forums

Sightings
worldwide astronaut appearances

Resources
selected space history documents

  collectSPACE: Messages
  Space Shuttles - Space Station
  Shuttle Columbia launch from Vandenberg?

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Shuttle Columbia launch from Vandenberg?
JBoe
Member

Posts: 960
From: Churchton, MD
Registered: Oct 2012

posted 01-03-2016 08:33 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for JBoe   Click Here to Email JBoe     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I saw this cover and it posed an interesting question, at least to me.

I know that Discovery (STS-62A) was to be launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, but was cancelled due to Challenger. Did NASA plan to launch Columbia after Discovery if the Challenger disaster didn't occur? How many other shuttle launches were scheduled?

Hart Sastrowardoyo
Member

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

posted 01-03-2016 09:57 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Hart Sastrowardoyo   Click Here to Email Hart Sastrowardoyo     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The cover may be dated wrong. As far as I know, following 61C, Columbia was to have done a Flight Readiness Firing at Vandenberg in order to launch Discovery from there — and following the FRF, Columbia was then to have begun processing for 61E.

Discovery was to have been the dedicated VAFB orbiter. As I've mentioned before, I had a Rockwell schedule up to 1989 which forecast launches up to 91T (20 launches from KSC) and 12V (four launches max a year from VAFB).

Two were scheduled from VAFB for 1986.

JBoe
Member

Posts: 960
From: Churchton, MD
Registered: Oct 2012

posted 01-03-2016 10:12 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for JBoe   Click Here to Email JBoe     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hart, thanks for the clarification and information. I thought I would ask since I was only aware of Discovery (STS-62A) from VAFB. Thanks again!

psloss
Member

Posts: 32
From:
Registered: Jun 2011

posted 01-03-2016 11:26 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for psloss   Click Here to Email psloss     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I don't believe Columbia was planned to be used at SLC-6 until after the 51-L accident. A significant portion of orbiter processing for the first Vandenberg missions was going to be done at Kennedy and up until 28 January 1986, Discovery was going to be used for the entire VLS-1 launch campaign, including a FRF.

The post-51L Columbia plan remained past the late July announcement designating that SLC-6 be put into operational caretaker status; it was cancelled in October.

There are some good references to contemporary reports footnoted in this post.

cspg
Member

Posts: 6210
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006

posted 01-04-2016 04:55 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for cspg   Click Here to Email cspg     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Wasn't Columbia too heavy for launch from SLC-6, in terms of payload capacity that is?

Hart Sastrowardoyo
Member

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

posted 01-04-2016 07:58 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Hart Sastrowardoyo   Click Here to Email Hart Sastrowardoyo     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Found the reference:
(Interestingly, Discovery's sister orbiter, Columbia, would have been flown to Vandenberg in the late spring of 1986 for pad 'fit checks' at SLC-6 and would herself have supported a 20-second FRF.)

JBoe
Member

Posts: 960
From: Churchton, MD
Registered: Oct 2012

posted 01-04-2016 08:29 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for JBoe   Click Here to Email JBoe     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hart, thanks for the reference. I looked through it briefly and from my understanding Columbia, Challenger, and Discovery were to at least conduct FRFs from Vandenberg. Was Atlantis also scheduled for FRF at Vandenberg? Would Endeavour conduct one if SLC-6 was considered to be operational if the Challenger disaster didn't occur?

Robert Pearlman
Editor

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

posted 01-04-2016 08:32 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
If the Challenger accident didn't occur, there would be no Endeavour. OV-105 was built as a replacement for OV-99.

JBoe
Member

Posts: 960
From: Churchton, MD
Registered: Oct 2012

posted 01-04-2016 08:46 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for JBoe   Click Here to Email JBoe     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
True, I should have realized that stipulation. In the end it sounds like all the shuttles would at least conduct a FRF from there at some point.

psloss
Member

Posts: 32
From:
Registered: Jun 2011

posted 01-04-2016 08:52 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for psloss   Click Here to Email psloss     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Hart Sastrowardoyo:
Found the reference
That was just published last September; unfortunately, it doesn't cite any reference for that. It's likely missing the "after the 51-L accident" qualifier.

psloss
Member

Posts: 32
From:
Registered: Jun 2011

posted 01-04-2016 09:08 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for psloss   Click Here to Email psloss     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by JBoe:
In the end it sounds like all the shuttles would at least conduct a FRF from there at some point.
No, the original FRFs were done once per orbiter and that was as much as required for each vehicle. Those were all performed at KSC.

The FRF planned for Vandenberg prior to the first launch would have been for facility validation (including all the hydrogen entrapment work that was in front of them at that point); it would not have been necessary to repeat it with a different vehicle. (And I'm not sure there was ever a pre-51L plan for all the vehicles to fly out of SLC-6.)

The FRF prior to STS-26 with Discovery was done to re-qualify the orbiter main propulsion system changes after the 51-L accident; however, neither Atlantis nor Columbia repeated it.

psloss
Member

Posts: 32
From:
Registered: Jun 2011

posted 01-04-2016 09:59 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for psloss   Click Here to Email psloss     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
For what it's worth, the Orlando Sentinel has some archives that Google has indexed. Here's the story from the 29 March 1986 edition on the selection of Columbia, by John Glisch. Excerpt:
Ball said Columbia was picked for the California tests so "extensive modifications" could be done to Discovery, which will fly military missions. One of the major changes involves equipping Discovery to carry Centaur upper stages in its cargo bay. The stages are more powerful than boosters used previously and can push heavier payloads into higher orbits.
(Shuttle-Centaur was cancelled in the middle of the year but not at the time of this announcement.)

DaveS_SSU
Member

Posts: 20
From:
Registered: Mar 2015

posted 01-13-2016 05:18 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for DaveS_SSU     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Well, that could be wrong. Even KSC's own official pages on Discovery states that "Discovery and Challenger was modified for the Centaur upper stage". I have conducted my own extensive research on this subject and have turned up zilch on that Discovery ever was Centaur modified.

Most likely "Discovery" is a typo for Atlantis which was Centaur modified from the get-go. Challenger however was partially modified for STS-61F at the time of her loss. The rest of the mods along with the actual "Mission Kit" were to be added during her STS-61F OPF flow after returning following 51L.

OV-105
Member

Posts: 816
From: Ridgecrest, CA
Registered: Sep 2000

posted 01-13-2016 06:48 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for OV-105   Click Here to Email OV-105     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
If I remember right, after Challenger, the plan was to add the Centuar mods to Discovery so they would still have two orbiters that could launch the booster. March of 1986 there was hope that the fix would be quick and flying by mid 1987 at the latest. They were going to use Columbia at VAFB for the FRF so when they went to do the first flight that would have been done already. Columbia had just come back from STS-61C so it would be easier to get ready for the FRF. Atlantis was going to be the return to flight orbiter.

DaveS_SSU
Member

Posts: 20
From:
Registered: Mar 2015

posted 01-13-2016 08:14 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for DaveS_SSU     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
If that was the plan, then it didn't stick very long as Discovery was moved from VAB High Bay 2 (HB2) to OPF-1 to begin processing for STS-26 on October 30, 1986. I don't know how much work could be done on the orbiter in VAB HB2 given limited access to the payload bay and midbody.

OV-105
Member

Posts: 816
From: Ridgecrest, CA
Registered: Sep 2000

posted 01-13-2016 09:35 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for OV-105   Click Here to Email OV-105     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
By October 86, the FRF had been cancelled and they knew they would not fly until early 88, they also canceled the Centaur over the summer. A lot changed over the summer once the Rodgers Report was released. The didn't want to chance flying Columbia on the 747 for the FRF since they were not sure when the first flight out of VAFB would be. So the ended up using Columbia for fit checks at 39B for the new weather protection system.

DaveS_SSU
Member

Posts: 20
From:
Registered: Mar 2015

posted 01-14-2016 02:18 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for DaveS_SSU     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The 39B tests were done with Atlantis, not Columbia. At the time Columbia was stored in VAB HB2 (she traded facilities with Discovery).

psloss
Member

Posts: 32
From:
Registered: Jun 2011

posted 01-14-2016 10:36 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for psloss   Click Here to Email psloss     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by DaveS_SSU:
If that was the plan, then it didn't stick very long...
It didn't — as I posted above, Shuttle-Centaur was cancelled a few months after the "Columbia to Vandenberg announcement." Even if the plan to modify Discovery for Centaur was never executed, it could easily have been enough to plan at that time on sending Columbia instead.

It also turns out that the Orlando Sentinel archive has a story written by James Fisher in the 21 February 1986 edition about the plan to modify Discovery.

There's also more technical contemporary reporting in the Aviation Week archive that was recently made available.

psloss
Member

Posts: 32
From:
Registered: Jun 2011

posted 01-14-2016 10:55 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for psloss   Click Here to Email psloss     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by DaveS_SSU:
At the time Columbia was stored in VAB HB2 (she traded facilities with Discovery).

Actually Columbia stayed in the OPF for most of 1986 after returning from Edwards after STS-61C. The orbiter was not put in storage in the VAB until after the Vandenberg plans were cancelled much later in the year. Columbia was being outfitted with engines for the Vandenberg testing, whereas the 39B tests were "dry" and Atlantis had no engines installed. Discovery and Atlantis were the vehicles trading places between the OPF and VAB after the accident, as in this picture from April.

All times are CT (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts

Copyright 2020 collectSPACE.com All rights reserved.


Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a





advertisement