America's space program took a major blow! We lost seven pioneers.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/challenger-disaster-marks-30th-anniversary-gallery-1.1593956?pmSlide=1.1593932
And insurance rates for teachers went up everywhere.
I was home, had Price is Right on, and Dan Rather interrupted (without his glasses on) and grimly announced an explosion on the Space Shuttle Challenger.
As soon as CBS was able to pull footage, it was immediately obvious the explosion was the entire vehicle. Dan came back on with his glasses, and things went downhill from there as we watched debris falling and endless running of the failed launch sequence.
Especially tough was the confusion on all the faces of the folks at the cape assemble to watch the launch.
Then as now, there were some difficulties in the reporting; I recall a parachute seen falling amidst the debris being ID'd as coast guard rescue personnel and actually it was from one of the SRB's recovery system.
In the weeks that followed and the flawed launch decision was revealed it just seemed everything was getting worse and worse.
My brother and I were home from school because it was a teacher workday. Our mom was a teacher, so our father stayed home that day. My brother and I were playing Intellivision games (most likely Burger Time) when our dad came in and unceremoniously changed the TV to the news–he'd been on the phone with someone and heard what happened.
The next day at school the reaction was mostly typical junior high tastelessness, jokes like how you knew Christa McAuliffe had dandruff (I won't give the punchline here)–stuff that seemed funny to 12-year-old boys and is hideously embarrassing in retrospect.
I was supposed to be born that day. I stayed in the womb another 10.
I was in 4th grade and home sick from school that day. My parents had just got home from Super Bowl XX in New Orleans. I called my dad at work to wish him a happy birthday. I hang up, and he calls back less than a minute later to tell me to put on television because he had heard someone say that the Space Shuttle blew up. I turned on CBS, and there was Dan Rather with the special report.
Quote from: NE2 on January 28, 2018, 08:20:49 PM
And insurance rates for teachers went up everywhere.
You say a lot of jerkish things on this site, but I think this one takes the cake.
I was at work in the Branch Clinic at the Naval Research Lab. It was aBob slow day for us, and we just kind of stood there in shock. I recall thinking that this was the beginning of the end of the space programme
P00I
Thirty-two years ago today, I was —6.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on January 29, 2018, 02:47:07 AM
Thirty-two years ago today, I was —6.
I'll wager you were bloody cold, then.
P00I
I was in my sophmore year of high school. We were in 4th period biology class and Mr Casmir wheeled in a TV so that we could watch the launch live. We watched it blow up and all just sat there quiet, stunned by what we had just seen.
I ended up going home sick that afternoon, not because of the disaster but because of the fact that I spent the previous day outside in below zero windchills at the rally for the Chcago Bears who had just come back from New Orleans after winning Super Bowl XX. In fact I missed the next 2 and a half weeks of school fighting a case of pneumonia.
I was in 5th grade. One of our 6th grade teachers had applied into the program. That class went down to the library where the only TV in the school was located to watch the launch. I heard she was crying, thinking that it could've been her up there.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 28, 2018, 09:56:21 PM
The next day at school the reaction was mostly typical junior high tastelessness, jokes like how you knew Christa McAuliffe had dandruff (I won’t give the punchline here)—stuff that seemed funny to 12-year-old boys and is hideously embarrassing in retrospect.
While true, it also shows how quick kids get over stuff. Parents needlessly worry that the kids are affected greatly. Some are, but many move on quickly.
Quote from: Otto Yamamoto on January 29, 2018, 07:26:12 AM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on January 29, 2018, 02:47:07 AM
Thirty-two years ago today, I was —6.
I'll wager you were bloody cold, then.
Lonely, too. My parents didn't even speak to each other back then.
This time of year is painful for many space fans: besides Challenger, there was the Apollo One fire on the launch pad on January 27, 1967, and the loss of Columbia February 1, 2003.
I was on semester break in my sophomore year in college and working at the Swampscott, MA Friendly's when the Challenger disaster happened. When word got out about the Challenger blowing up, the shift-supervisor on duty moved the small (15") black-and-white TV from the breakroom to the main working floor so that the employees can periodically view the special reports.
Side bar: Two days earlier, the New England Patriots got blown away in their first-ever Super Bowl appearance against the Chicago Bears (Super Bowl XX).
As a result, there were at least a couple of jokes that tied together both the Challenger disaster and the Patriots Super Bowl loss that circulated around back then.
Similar story here to many others of my age. I was off school because it was regents exam week in New York and I wasn't taking any January exams. I was watching the launch and it happened while I was making myself some lunch. I remember being glued to the television the rest of the day. It was probably the first real "remember where you were when it happened" moment of my life.
I was heading to class on the bus. When I got to the bus stop, someone at the stop, a stranger, told me. I went through the day but kind of in shock. Before then, the United States never lost an astronaut on a space mission, and it had been 19 years since the loss of any astronaut (the Apollo 1 fire in a training exercise). I thought we'd learned enough and were careful enough not to have those kinds of accidents.
Just wondering.. How many people over here did read Roger's commission report and Feynman's memoir of investigation?
From my perspective, an absolute must-read for anyone in engineering or technical field.
One of my team members had a small portable TV that he brought for the purpose of us watching space shuttle launces. They were still a pretty big deal in 1986.
We saw the launch and the aftermath.
Quote from: kalvado on January 29, 2018, 01:04:14 PM
Just wondering.. How many people over here did read Roger's commission report and Feynman's memoir of investigation?
From my perspective, an absolute must-read for anyone in engineering or technical field.
I read enough of it to have a technical understanding of what happened and why.
Ditto for the Columbia space shuttle disaster.
Quote from: Beltway on January 29, 2018, 01:11:14 PM
Quote from: kalvado on January 29, 2018, 01:04:14 PM
Just wondering.. How many people over here did read Roger's commission report and Feynman's memoir of investigation?
From my perspective, an absolute must-read for anyone in engineering or technical field.
I read enough of it to have a technical understanding of what happened and why.
Ditto for the Columbia space shuttle disaster.
No compilations actually equal to first-hand account of clusterf$%k NASA created out of space shuttle program.
Quote from: kalvado on January 29, 2018, 01:04:14 PM
Just wondering.. How many people over here did read Roger's commission report and Feynman's memoir of investigation?
From my perspective, an absolute must-read for anyone in engineering or technical field.
I read all of Feynman's report, and I read part of the commission report and skimmed the rest.
Wayne Hale's blog at
https://waynehale.wordpress.com/
is also very interesting! He was a project manager on the Shuttle and writes a lot about the Shuttle program, and NASA and engineering in general.
This was all history lessons for me in school until I witnessed the Columbia incident with their re-entry :-(
Quote from: kalvado on January 29, 2018, 01:14:40 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 29, 2018, 01:11:14 PM
Quote from: kalvado on January 29, 2018, 01:04:14 PM
Just wondering.. How many people over here did read Roger's commission report and Feynman's memoir of investigation?
From my perspective, an absolute must-read for anyone in engineering or technical field.
I read enough of it to have a technical understanding of what happened and why.
Ditto for the Columbia space shuttle disaster.
No compilations actually equal to first-hand account of clusterf$%k NASA created out of space shuttle program.
They accomplished amazing things with the 132 successful shuttle missions.
However they lost 2 of the 5 shuttles thru major management failures, and that is very regrettable.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on January 28, 2018, 11:34:31 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 28, 2018, 08:20:49 PM
And insurance rates for teachers went up everywhere.
You say a lot of jerkish things on this site, but I think this one takes the cake.
Amazing what qualifies as hate-filled to him, and then he says crap like this.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 28, 2018, 07:35:20 PM
America's space program took a major blow! We lost seven pioneers.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/challenger-disaster-marks-30th-anniversary-gallery-1.1593956?pmSlide=1.1593932 (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/challenger-disaster-marks-30th-anniversary-gallery-1.1593956?pmSlide=1.1593932)
RIP to the Shuttle victims.
Quote from: SectorZ on January 29, 2018, 03:33:22 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on January 28, 2018, 11:34:31 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 28, 2018, 08:20:49 PM
And insurance rates for teachers went up everywhere.
You say a lot of jerkish things on this site, but I think this one takes the cake.
Amazing what qualifies as hate-filled to him, and then he says crap like this.
Oh lighten up, you two.
And on January 27, 1967 we lost 3 astronauts in the Apollo 1 fire.
And February 1, 2003 we lost Columbia.
Quote from: kalvado on January 29, 2018, 01:04:14 PM
Just wondering.. How many people over here did read Roger's commission report and Feynman's memoir of investigation?
From my perspective, an absolute must-read for anyone in engineering or technical field.
Yes, both, cover to cover. Also Vaughn's The Challenger Launch Decision and Cook's Challenger Revealed....
and well, lots of of space and engineering books....
Its odd that we remember where we were during tragedies. I was home at the time and I heard from my sister that it had exploded. I quickly turned on the news and I first saw that it was a reported malfunction, but when I heard the whole thing went up I was in shock as it was the second vehicle that was presented (as Columbia was the first). I thought that soon after we would hear that the crew was found safe, but when they were not I had a hard time believing the seven were indeed gone forever. I would think that they made it up to orbit for some reason.
As far as the jokes go, the new acronym for NASA was one. Need Another Seven Astronauts was told for ages to come.
However the school teacher I thought of first as it was the first time a civilian was allowed to go on a mission and the news for months covered Christa's training and how excited she was to teach her school children science from outer space.
With that being said, FDOT did name the SR 3 bridge on Merrit Island across the Canaveral Barge Canal after her which lies to the south of the Space Center which I think is a great tribute.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 30, 2018, 05:53:25 PM
...
However the school teacher I thought of first as it was the first time a civilian was allowed to go on a mission and the news for months covered Christa's training and how excited she was to teach her school children science from outer space.
...
Actually, several civilians preceded her: Sen Jake Garn, Sen Bill Nelson, and a Saudi prince - I think there were others. She was certainly the most popular and well-known, even before the disaster.
Quote from: US 81 on January 30, 2018, 06:16:53 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 30, 2018, 05:53:25 PM
However the school teacher I thought of first as it was the first time a civilian was allowed to go on a mission and the news for months covered Christa's training and how excited she was to teach her school children science from outer space.
Actually, several civilians preceded her: Sen Jake Garn, Sen Bill Nelson, and a Saudi prince - I think there were others. She was certainly the most popular and well-known, even before the disaster.
Any of a number of shuttle crew members that were not active duty military at the time of their flight, would be considered as 'civilians'
Quote from: Otto Yamamoto on January 29, 2018, 07:26:12 AMI'll wager you were bloody cold, then.
Wasn't that the problem with the shuttle launch? it was bloody cold and that broke something.
Quote from: US 81 on January 29, 2018, 08:46:56 AMthe loss of Columbia February 1, 2003.
That's the one that killed US space exploration.
Challenger had got people behind the space program again, before it exploded, and when it did then there was another re-rallying to get behind space exploration, as there was with Apollo 1. With Columbia people were tired of the space program anyway, and the extra-carefulness stopped a rebound. Of course there were 22 more missions, but it was very much the beginning of the end of US-led manned spaceflight.
Challenger tags were the first specialty licence plates in Florida.. now we have literally hundreds
And yet we still have the horrible general issue "myFlorida.com" tags.. we we're supposed to get new design in 2012, but some controversy over new vendor and not being the prisoners
Z981
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2018, 09:07:36 PM
Any of a number of shuttle crew members that were not active duty military at the time of their flight, would be considered as 'civilians'
One of my English pet peeves. The only proper use of the word "civilian" means "not in the uniformed military services". In addition to the above use, I have seen it used to mean "not the police", "not a politician" and even on old game shows to mean "not an actor". All are wrong.
As the the space program, I never was a big follower. It seems just a way to distract the public from other issues. Like the movie Apollo 13. Everybody all up in arms about 3 volunteers. While over 1000 men were in the hands of a purely evil enemy under torture, a torture which lasted for over a decade for some. And 10s of 1000s were in harm's way in the same conflict, with many killed during that brief period. And pretty much nobody did diddly to help them.
Quote from: english si on January 31, 2018, 05:31:56 AM
Quote from: Otto Yamamoto on January 29, 2018, 07:26:12 AMI'll wager you were bloody cold, then.
Wasn't that the problem with the shuttle launch? it was bloody cold and that broke something.
Quote from: US 81 on January 29, 2018, 08:46:56 AMthe loss of Columbia February 1, 2003.
That's the one that killed US space exploration.
Challenger had got people behind the space program again, before it exploded, and when it did then there was another re-rallying to get behind space exploration, as there was with Apollo 1. With Columbia people were tired of the space program anyway, and the extra-carefulness stopped a rebound. Of course there were 22 more missions, but it was very much the beginning of the end of US-led manned spaceflight.
You could've been trucking gold bars to space and it wouldn't have offset the cost of having a second shuttle ready and waiting to rescue astronauts who weren't able to return to Earth on the primary shuttle for that mission.
Quote from: abefroman329 on January 31, 2018, 11:40:56 AM
Quote from: english si on January 31, 2018, 05:31:56 AM
Quote from: US 81 on January 29, 2018, 08:46:56 AMthe loss of Columbia February 1, 2003.
That's the one that killed US space exploration.
Challenger had got people behind the space program again, before it exploded, and when it did then there was another re-rallying to get behind space exploration, as there was with Apollo 1. With Columbia people were tired of the space program anyway, and the extra-carefulness stopped a rebound. Of course there were 22 more missions, but it was very much the beginning of the end of US-led manned spaceflight.
You could've been trucking gold bars to space and it wouldn't have offset the cost of having a second shuttle ready and waiting to rescue astronauts who weren't able to return to Earth on the primary shuttle for that mission.
The Soviets and Russians have been flying the Soyuz every year for over 50 years, and it carries three crew, and at least one Soyuz spacecraft is docked to the International Space Station (ISS) at all times for use as an escape craft in the event of an emergency.
The shuttle had far more capability and capacity but most of it wasn't needed for any practical missions.
Sometimes simpler may be better.
Quote from: Beltway on January 31, 2018, 03:15:45 PM
The Soviets and Russians have been flying the Soyuz every year for over 50 years, and it carries three crew, and at least one Soyuz spacecraft is docked to the International Space Station (ISS) at all times for use as an escape craft in the event of an emergency.
The shuttle had far more capability and capacity but most of it wasn't needed for any practical missions.
Sometimes simpler may be better.
Not even that... Shuttle was supposed to be cheap space launch vehicle - and the only US space launch vehicle. Launching everything in a shuttle - and doing it for a fraction of competitor's price; running some science along the way - almost for free, launch paid for by satellite! - and building and maintaining SDI on military side would keep the thing busy.
Now costs started to climb after Challenger as problems were understood, very few satellites were actually launched by shuttle, and SDI was never deployed.
Two meaningful things Shuttle did were putting together ISS and servicing Hubble telescope.
But most of its career shuttle was a solution in search of a problem. Since purpose of human space flight itself is not clear to begin, problems were hard to formulate. Same goes to ISS.
Some of the other issues with the shuttle came from it being designed to do things that never happened, such as launches into polar orbit from Vandenberg Air Force Base (they spent something like $4 billion on the launch site and ultimately never used it for the shuttle). I read somewhere that analysts concluded there would have a 25% chance per launch of a catastrophic loss of the orbiter, crew, and payload had they ever attempted a shuttle launch out of Vandenberg.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 31, 2018, 03:39:55 PM
Some of the other issues with the shuttle came from it being designed to do things that never happened, such as launches into polar orbit from Vandenberg Air Force Base (they spent something like $4 billion on the launch site and ultimately never used it for the shuttle). I read somewhere that analysts concluded there would have a 25% chance per launch of a catastrophic loss of the orbiter, crew, and payload had they ever attempted a shuttle launch out of Vandenberg.
I really doubt that 25% number. Would be interesting to look at that analysis... $4B also sounds too high for Vandenberg construction alone - maybe that includes payloads? And launch capability of Vandenberg is not wasted..
But role of military in (mis)shaping the shuttle, including 30 ton trunk capacity, is definitely part of the mess.
Quote from: kalvado on January 31, 2018, 03:34:38 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 31, 2018, 03:15:45 PM
The Soviets and Russians have been flying the Soyuz every year for over 50 years, and it carries three crew, and at least one Soyuz spacecraft is docked to the International Space Station (ISS) at all times for use as an escape craft in the event of an emergency.
The shuttle had far more capability and capacity but most of it wasn't needed for any practical missions.
Sometimes simpler may be better.
Not even that... Shuttle was supposed to be cheap space launch vehicle - and the only US space launch vehicle. Launching everything in a shuttle - and doing it for a fraction of competitor's price; running some science along the way - almost for free, launch paid for by satellite! - and building and maintaining SDI on military side would keep the thing busy.
Now costs started to climb after Challenger as problems were understood, very few satellites were actually launched by shuttle, and SDI was never deployed.
Two meaningful things Shuttle did were putting together ISS and servicing Hubble telescope.
But most of its career shuttle was a solution in search of a problem. Since purpose of human space flight itself is not clear to begin, problems were hard to formulate. Same goes to ISS.
Some space analysts have posited that it would have been less expensive to launch a new telescope when the previous one needed major repairs, and also that it would have been less expensive to utilize a heavy lift expendable rocket to send up the components of the space station.
Quote from: kalvado on January 31, 2018, 03:56:34 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 31, 2018, 03:39:55 PM
Some of the other issues with the shuttle came from it being designed to do things that never happened, such as launches into polar orbit from Vandenberg Air Force Base (they spent something like $4 billion on the launch site and ultimately never used it for the shuttle). I read somewhere that analysts concluded there would have a 25% chance per launch of a catastrophic loss of the orbiter, crew, and payload had they ever attempted a shuttle launch out of Vandenberg.
I really doubt that 25% number. Would be interesting to look at that analysis... $4B also sounds too high for Vandenberg construction alone - maybe that includes payloads? And launch capability of Vandenberg is not wasted..
But role of military in (mis)shaping the shuttle, including 30 ton trunk capacity, is definitely part of the mess.
I don't remember where I saw the article, but I recall it citing a number of factors–filament-wound SRBs (specified for lighter weight to allow for heavier payloads due to the loss of gravity assist) were potentially less durable and more subject to failure; icing on the external tank and SRB seals was a greater concern due to unpredictable weather; acoustic vibrations/sound waves were a major issue because of the mountainous terrain and the proximity of structures to the launch pad (unlike at Kennedy, at Vandenberg the VAB and launch pad were integrated and the building was essentially to slide open at launch time); and I believe there was a concern about the possibility of liquid hydrogen exploding underneath the stack. I think there were some other issues mentioned, but those are the main ones I recall.
I believe one major difference as to the current operations is that they're unmanned (there's never been a manned launch into polar orbit by any country) and thus a greater level of hazard may be acceptable.
I've seen the $4 billion figure cited many times, and apparently it does not include the original construction for the aborted MOL program.
Quote from: Beltway on January 31, 2018, 04:05:43 PM
Quote from: kalvado on January 31, 2018, 03:34:38 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 31, 2018, 03:15:45 PM
The Soviets and Russians have been flying the Soyuz every year for over 50 years, and it carries three crew, and at least one Soyuz spacecraft is docked to the International Space Station (ISS) at all times for use as an escape craft in the event of an emergency.
The shuttle had far more capability and capacity but most of it wasn't needed for any practical missions.
Sometimes simpler may be better.
Not even that... Shuttle was supposed to be cheap space launch vehicle - and the only US space launch vehicle. Launching everything in a shuttle - and doing it for a fraction of competitor's price; running some science along the way - almost for free, launch paid for by satellite! - and building and maintaining SDI on military side would keep the thing busy.
Now costs started to climb after Challenger as problems were understood, very few satellites were actually launched by shuttle, and SDI was never deployed.
Two meaningful things Shuttle did were putting together ISS and servicing Hubble telescope.
But most of its career shuttle was a solution in search of a problem. Since purpose of human space flight itself is not clear to begin, problems were hard to formulate. Same goes to ISS.
Some space analysts have posited that it would have been less expensive to launch a new telescope when the previous one needed major repairs, and also that it would have been less expensive to utilize a heavy lift expendable rocket to send up the components of the space station.
Very likely those would be cheaper option.. But whose two examples are pretty much the type of jobs Shuttle was designed for. It turned out there are only that many of such jobs to be done, though
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 31, 2018, 04:28:38 PM
I don't remember where I saw the article, but I recall it citing a number of factors–filament-wound SRBs (specified for lighter weight to allow for heavier payloads due to the loss of gravity assist) were potentially less durable and more subject to failure; icing on the external tank and SRB seals was a greater concern due to unpredictable weather; acoustic vibrations/sound waves were a major issue because of the mountainous terrain and the proximity of structures to the launch pad (unlike at Kennedy, at Vandenberg the VAB and launch pad were integrated and the building was essentially to slide open at launch time); and I believe there was a concern about the possibility of liquid hydrogen exploding underneath the stack. I think there were some other issues mentioned, but those are the main ones I recall.
I believe one major difference as to the current operations is that they're unmanned (there's never been a manned launch into polar orbit by any country) and thus a greater level of hazard may be acceptable.
I've seen the $4 billion figure cited many times, and apparently it does not include the original construction for the aborted MOL program.
I haven't seen the 25% loss rate, but that does sound high, and something that could be addressed in various ways if that was a concern.
This is what the Wikipedia article "Vandenberg AFB Space Launch Complex 6" has to say --
Eventually, on May 13, 1988, Secretary Aldridge then directed the Air Force to transfer space shuttle assets at Vandenberg to other organizations (specifically, the Kennedy Space Center) by September 30, 1989, the end of the fiscal year. The work was completed 10 days early on September 20, 1989 when SLC-6 was placed in mothball status.
Several factors accounted for this:
-- The Challenger disaster made it clear that sole dependency on the shuttle was unwise;
-- SLC-6 would have generated more contaminated waste water than originally envisioned, necessitating an expensive treatment plant;
-- Further study showed more sound suppression water would have been needed, requiring upgraded water supply facilities;
-- Vehicle icing would have been more problematic than in Florida, and it was unclear how well SLC-6 facilities would handle that;
-- Blast protection of nearby occupied buildings was unsatisfactory and more construction would have been required to safeguard them;
-- Post-Challenger, the more confined SLC-6 launch area raised concerns of entrapped gaseous hydrogen causing a fire or explosion;
-- Large construction cost overruns, and
-- Independent audits found significant construction quality problems that would have been expensive to fix.
The Air Force officially terminated the space shuttle program at Vandenberg on December 26, 1989. The estimated cost for the discontinued program was $4 billion.
I wish I could remember where I saw the 25% figure. I don't believe it was from NASA; I recall it being based on outside analysis. If I can find it, I'll post a link, but it won't likely be any time prior to at least this weekend. January was a slow month at work, but February is going to be busier.
Quote from: kkt on January 29, 2018, 12:57:36 PM
I was heading to class on the bus. When I got to the bus stop, someone at the stop, a stranger, told me. I went through the day but kind of in shock. Before then, the United States never lost an astronaut on a space mission, and it had been 19 years since the loss of any astronaut (the Apollo 1 fire in a training exercise). I thought we'd learned enough and were careful enough not to have those kinds of accidents.
We came darn close with Apollo 13. Mission Control pretty much pulled of a miracle getting the crew back home.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 31, 2018, 10:02:18 PM
I wish I could remember where I saw the 25% figure. I don't believe it was from NASA; I recall it being based on outside analysis. If I can find it, I'll post a link, but it won't likely be any time prior to at least this weekend. January was a slow month at work, but February is going to be busier.
Here is a good article, it seems to contain the points on my previous post. There were definite safety issues given how compact were the launch pad and preparation and fuel storage facilities. The Air Force would have administered the facility, and not NASA. There were plans for at least a dozen polar orbit shuttle missions.
https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-space-shuttle-s-military-launch-complex-in-californ-1710303170
[post Challenger] "This left the Air Force and the Defense Department to re-think their planned reliance on the costly and seemingly unreliable Shuttle for heaving critical and very expensive spy and communications satellites into orbit. The truth is that the Shuttle's capability to provide anywhere near the number of flights that the program had promised was largely in question long before the loss of Challenger. With all this in mind, the decision was made to put SLC-6 on caretaker status and by 1989 the Pentagon's Shuttle Program was officially shuttered."
So for launch capacity issues alone the shuttle was deemed inadequate.
There never has been a manned polar orbit mission ... I wonder if there would be any need for such a mission?
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2018, 09:51:42 PM
There never has been a manned polar orbit mission ... I wonder if there would be any need for such a mission?
If you think about it...
-Shuttle was supposed to become the only launch vehicle. Unmanned capability was winding down.
-Flying from Florida, default orbit inclination was 28 degrees. There were modifications to the craft to enable 51 degree launches (to match russian capability for ISS launches - they cannot launch anything on less than 51)
-28 degree doesn't go over USSR, or most of Europe.
-Spy satellites mus cover entire planet.
Which adds up to some requirements...
Quote from: kalvado on February 01, 2018, 10:05:28 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2018, 09:51:42 PM
There never has been a manned polar orbit mission ... I wonder if there would be any need for such a mission?
If you think about it...
-Shuttle was supposed to become the only launch vehicle. Unmanned capability was winding down.
-Flying from Florida, default orbit inclination was 28 degrees. There were modifications to the craft to enable 51 degree launches (to match russian capability for ISS launches - they cannot launch anything on less than 51)
-28 degree doesn't go over USSR, or most of Europe.
-Spy satellites mus cover entire planet.
Which adds up to some requirements...
Yes, back then, KSC presented problems for polar launches, from the article --
"Such a flight path would send the Shuttle over populated areas during launch, traveling over an area ranging from South Carolina to the Great Lakes. The Shuttle's boosters would drop somewhere near Brunswick, Georgia, and its main tank would end up whipping around the globe over Russia and China, and ending up in the Indian Ocean... Hopefully."
Launching to the south would take it entirely over Florida down to the Keys before it flew over any water body.
My question was more about aside from the shuttle-only idea, and aside from the shuttle itself, and mostly about today and going forward.
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2018, 10:16:40 PM
Yes, back then, KSC presented problems for polar launches, from the article --
As far as I'm aware, Florida in general and KSC in particular were not relocated since those days...
Quote
My question was more about aside from the shuttle-only idea, and aside from the shuttle itself, and mostly about today and going forward.
Crazy idea to begin with. First, radiation - significant in polar areas due to configuration of magnetic field. Even for polar flying aircraft.
Second, once around flight - and more than that, and there is no way to land on launch site - would stress bodies too much; imagine going 3g-force at launch to 0 g orbit to 2-3g landing - and piloting that landing! - in less than 2 hours.
Last, but not the least.. Too short for anything useful other than deploying payload.
The other issue about polar orbit launches out of Kennedy is that a launch to the south (as is normal at Vandenberg) would have had the SRBs landing in Cuban territory, so obviously not an option.
If you're interested in shuttle logistics, there's a novel called Shuttle Down by Lee Correy in which Atlantis develops a problem on a launch out of Vandenberg and makes an emergency landing on Easter Island. The book discusses lots of logistical issues in getting the shuttle back. The author (who used a pen name) worked for NASA and wrote the book to expose issues they were overlooking.
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 02, 2018, 07:19:16 AM
The other issue about polar orbit launches out of Kennedy is that a launch to the south (as is normal at Vandenberg) would have had the SRBs landing in Cuban territory, so obviously not an option.
If you're interested in shuttle logistics, there's a novel called Shuttle Down by Lee Correy in which Atlantis develops a problem on a launch out of Vandenberg and makes an emergency landing on Easter Island. The book discusses lots of logistical issues in getting the shuttle back. The author (who used a pen name) worked for NASA and wrote the book to expose issues they were overlooking.
Does Easter Island have an airstrip long enough to handle the 747 that carries the shuttle orbiter? Is there a port or dock that would handle a ship large enough to carry the orbiter?
I wonder if the Virginia spaceport was ever considered for polar launches. The track heading south grazes the tip of Cape Hatteras, but doesn't cross land until the lower Bahamas about 2,000 miles from launch.
Quote from: Beltway on February 02, 2018, 07:46:21 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 02, 2018, 07:19:16 AM
The other issue about polar orbit launches out of Kennedy is that a launch to the south (as is normal at Vandenberg) would have had the SRBs landing in Cuban territory, so obviously not an option.
If you're interested in shuttle logistics, there's a novel called Shuttle Down by Lee Correy in which Atlantis develops a problem on a launch out of Vandenberg and makes an emergency landing on Easter Island. The book discusses lots of logistical issues in getting the shuttle back. The author (who used a pen name) worked for NASA and wrote the book to expose issues they were overlooking.
Does Easter Island have an airstrip long enough to handle the 747 that carries the shuttle orbiter? Is there a port or dock that would handle a ship large enough to carry the orbiter?
I wonder if the Virginia spaceport was ever considered for polar launches. The track heading south grazes the tip of Cape Hatteras, but doesn't cross land until the lower Bahamas about 2,000 miles from launch.
NASA actually paid to extend and improve Easter island runway. http://articles.latimes.com/1985-06-30/news/mn-70_1_easter-island
As for Virginia... Was there any launch activity - or plans for that - in 1970-s, when most Shuttle decisions were taken? Besides, we're talking about highly classified military payloads, and "AFB" is missing from the name of facility..
What was the plan for mounting the Shuttle to the 747 if the Shuttle had to make an emergency landing at another site?
Quote from: abefroman329 on February 02, 2018, 02:38:39 PM
What was the plan for mounting the Shuttle to the 747 if the Shuttle had to make an emergency landing at another site?
They'd have had to fly a mate-demate device to the site. It would have resulted in big delays in getting the Orbiter back, of course. (This is one of the issues addressed in the novel I mentioned above.)
They did this for one of the final missions (I'd have to look up which one) when it looked like bad weather was going to force a landing at White Sands–they shipped the device out there to be prepared. Ultimately they were able to squeeze in a landing in Florida instead. An emergency situation would have been far more complicated, of course.
Quote from: abefroman329 on February 02, 2018, 02:38:39 PM
What was the plan for mounting the Shuttle to the 747 if the Shuttle had to make an emergency landing at another site?
They would have had to bring the equipment necessary to lift the shuttle to mount it. I do seem to recall that there was equipment already staged at the TAL sites as well as Edwards AFB in CA.
Funny after all these years of living here I didn't find out until the last few missions that MCAS Cherry Point was actually one of several east coast emergency landing sites for a brief portion of the Ascent Phase.....
NASA used to have a treasure trove of documents available online through the Johnson Space Center portal that included actual manuals, mission briefings, space walk plans-you name it, for the last several Shuttle missions.
It was easy to find before the last website redesign, I am not sure how to get to it now (if I find it again I will just edit this post with the link).Edit: I found what I was looking for, enjoy: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/news/flightdatafiles/index.html
BTW, regarding the Wallops Island launch site in Virginia–obviously it not being a Defense Department facility was a major issue, but I wonder, is there room there for a long enough runway? One advantage the Air Force felt was important at Vandenberg was the space for a huge runway to allow a shuttle carrying a satellite to land (not just take off)–for example, if a shuttle captured a Soviet satellite and then landed. They indeed have a runway that's almost theee miles long (although, oddly, it's 16 miles from SLC-6). I'm not familiar enough with Wallops to know whether that sort of thing would have been feasible there.
Obviously, if there had ever been enough of a need for it, the White House probably could have ordered a polar-orbit launch out of KSC, although the closest they ever came was STS-36 launching to a 62° orbital inclination via a dogleg maneuver (which used additional propellant and thus reduced the payload capacity). If you want to read an interesting, if rather absurd, fictional story in which the president orders a polar-orbit launch from KSC, read Storming Intrepid by Payne Harrison. It's a Tom Clancy—style technothriller involving the space shuttle Intrepid becoming stranded in a polar orbit after a launch out of Vandenberg. I won't go into further detail about why it becomes stranded because that's a significant part of the plot. Pretty good book, even if the overall plot is rather unrealistic.
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 02, 2018, 08:32:43 PM
BTW, regarding the Wallops Island launch site in Virginia –obviously it not being a Defense Department facility was a major issue, but I wonder, is there room there for a long enough runway? One advantage the Air Force felt was important at Vandenberg was the space for a huge runway to allow a shuttle carrying a satellite to land (not just take off)–for example, if a shuttle captured a Soviet satellite and then landed. They indeed have a runway that's almost theee miles long (although, oddly, it's 16 miles from SLC-6). I'm not familiar enough with Wallops to know whether that sort of thing would have been feasible there.
KSC didn't have a long enough runway until they built one, and in a wetlands area. That is what would have been needed for the Virginia spaceport. Also, KSC isn't technically a DoD facility, is it? At least the part where the VAB, LC-39, and runway are.
But that doesn't answer the question: Would there have been space at Wallops? (That's a genuine question. I don't know and I'm not asking it to be contrary.)
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 02, 2018, 11:10:33 PM
But that doesn't answer the question: Would there have been space at Wallops? (That's a genuine question. I don't know and I'm not asking it to be contrary.)
From review of satellite map views, probably so, either on the islands or on the mainland nearby.