Jump to content

STS-3xx

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

STS-3xx
Mission typeCrew rescue
Mission duration4 days
Spacecraft properties
Spacecraft typeSpace Shuttle
Crew
Crew size4
MembersNone assigned
Start of mission
Launch dateFlight Day 45
Relative to original mission
Launch siteKennedyLC-39
End of mission
Landing dateFlight Day 49
Orbital parameters
Reference systemGeocentric
RegimeLow Earth
Inclination51.6 degrees
Docking withISS
Docking dateFlight Day 47
Undocking dateFlight Day 48
Time docked< 1 day

Space Shuttle missions designatedSTS-3xx(officially calledLaunch On Need(LON) missions) were rescue missions which would have been mounted to rescue the crew of aSpace Shuttleif their vehicle was damaged and deemed unable to make a successful reentry. Such a mission would have been flown ifMission Controldetermined that the heat shielding tiles andreinforced carbon-carbonpanels of a currently flying orbiter were damaged beyond the repair capabilities of the available on-orbit repair methods. These missions were also referred to asLaunch on Demand(LOD) andContingency Shuttle Crew Support.The program was initiated followingloss of Space ShuttleColumbiain 2003. No mission of this type was launched during the Space Shuttle program.

Procedure[edit]

The orbiter and four of the crew which were due to fly the next planned mission would be retasked to the rescue mission. The planning and training processes for a rescue flight would allowNASAto launch the mission within a period of 40 days of its being called up. During that time the damaged (or disabled) shuttle's crew would have to take refuge on theInternational Space Station(ISS). The ISS is able to support both crews for around 80 days, with oxygen supply being the limiting factor.[1]Within NASA, this plan for maintaining the shuttle crew at theISSis known as Contingency Shuttle Crew Support (CSCS) operations.[2]Up toSTS-121all rescue missions were to be designatedSTS-300.

In the case of an abort to orbit, where the shuttle could have been unable to reach the ISS orbit and the thermal protection system inspections suggested that the shuttle could not have returned to Earth safely, the ISS may have been capable of descent down to meet the shuttle. Such a procedure was known as a joint underspeed recovery.[3]

Mission designations for STS-3xx flights
Flight Rescue flight[2][4][5][6]
STS-114(Discovery) STS-300(Atlantis)
STS-121(Discovery) STS-300(Atlantis)
STS-115(Atlantis) STS-301(Discovery)
STS-116(Discovery) STS-317(Atlantis)
STS-117(Atlantis) STS-318(Endeavour[citation needed])
STS-118(Endeavour) STS-322(Discovery)
STS-120(Discovery) STS-320(Atlantis)
STS-122(Atlantis) STS-323(Discovery*)[7]
STS-123(Endeavour) STS-324(Discovery)
STS-124(Discovery) STS-326(Endeavour)
STS-125(Atlantis) STS-400(Endeavour)
STS-134(Endeavour) STS-335(Atlantis)

* – originally scheduled to beEndeavour,changed toDiscoveryfor contamination issues.[7]

To save weight, and to allow the combined crews of both shuttles to return to Earth safely, many shortcuts would have to be made, and the risks of launching another orbiter without resolving the failure which caused the previous orbiter to become disabled would have to be faced.

Flight hardware[edit]

A number of pieces of Launch on Need flight hardware were built in preparation for a rescue mission including:

  • An extra three recumbent seats to be located in the aft middeck (ditch area)
  • Two handholds located on the starboard wall of the ditch area
  • Individual Cooling Units mounting provisions
  • Seat 5 modification to properly secure in a recumbent position
  • Mounting provisions for four additional Sky Genie egress devices (see picture)
    Training with a Sky Genie egress device
  • Escape Pole mounting provisions for three additional lanyards[8]

Remote Control Orbiter[edit]

The Remote Control Orbiter (RCO), also known as the Autonomous Orbiter Rapid Prototype (AORP), was a term used by NASA to describe a shuttle that could perform entry and landing without a human crew on board via remote control. NASA developed the RCO in-flight maintenance (IFM) cable to extend existing auto-land capabilities of the shuttle to allow remaining tasks to be completed from the ground. The purpose of the RCO IFM cable was to provide an electrical signal connection between the Ground Command Interface Logic (GCIL) and the flight deck panel switches. The cable is approximately 28 feet (8.5 m) long, weighs over 5 lb (2.3 kg), and has 16 connectors.[9][10]With this system, signals could be sent from the Mission Control Center to the unmanned shuttle to control the following systems:

The RCO IFM cable first flew aboardSTS-121and was transferred to the ISS for storage during the mission. The cable remained aboard the ISS until the end of the Shuttle program. Prior to STS-121 the plan was for the damaged shuttle to be abandoned and allowed to burn up on reentry. The prime landing site for an RCO orbiter would beVandenberg Air Force Basein California.[11]Edwards Air Force Base,a site already used to support shuttle landings, was the prime RCO landing site for the first missions carrying the equipment; however Vandenberg was later selected as the prime site as it is nearer the coast, and the shuttle can be ditched in the Pacific should a problem develop that would make landing dangerous.White Sands Missile RangeinNew Mexicois a likely alternate site.[12]A major consideration in determining the landing site would be the desire to perform a high-risk re-entry far away from populated areas. The flight resource book, and flight rules in force during STS-121 suggest that the damaged shuttle would reenter on a trajectory such that if it should break up, it would do so with debris landing in the South Pacific Ocean.[2]

The SovietBuran shuttlewas also remotely controlled during its entire maiden flight without a crew aboard. Landing was carried out by an onboard, automatic system.[13]

As of March 2011 theBoeing X-37extended duration robotic spaceplane has demonstrated autonomous orbital flight, reentry and landing.[14][15]The X-37 was originally intended for launch from the Shuttle payload bay, but following theColumbiadisaster,it was launched in a shrouded configuration on anAtlas V.

Sample timeline[edit]

Had a LON mission been required, a timeline would have been developed similar to the following:

  • FD-10A decision on the requirement for Contingency Shuttle Crew Support (CSCS) is expected by flight day 10 of a nominal mission.
  • FD-10Shortly after the need for CSCS operations a group C powerdown of the shuttle will take place.
  • FD-11→21During flight days 11–21 of the mission the shuttle will remain docked to the international space station (ISS) with the hatch open. Various items will be transferred between the shuttle and ISS.
  • FD-21Hatch closure will be conducted from the ISS side. The shuttle crew remains on the ISS, leaving the shuttle unmanned
  • FD-21Deorbit burn – burn occurs four hours after separation. Orbiter lands at Vandenberg Air Force Base under remote control from Houston. (Prior to STS-121, the payload bay doors would have been left open to promote vehicle breakup.)
  • FD-45Launch of rescue flight. 35 days from call-up to launch for the rescue flight is a best estimate of the minimum time it will take before a rescue flight is launched.[16]
  • FD-45→47The rescue flight catches up with the ISS, conducting heat shield inspections en route.
  • FD-47The rescue flight docks with the station, on day three of its mission.
  • FD-48Shuttle crew enters the rescue orbiter. Vehicle with a crew complement of 11 undocks from ISS.
  • FD-49Rescue orbiter re-enters atmosphere over Indian or Pacific Ocean for landing at either Kennedy Space Center or Edwards Air Force Base. A RussianProgressresupply spacecraft is launched at later date to resupply ISS crew. ISS precautionary de-crew preparations begin.
  • FD-58De-crew ISS due toECLSSO2exhaustion in eventProgressunable to perform resupply function.

STS-125 rescue plan[edit]

Main article:STS-400
STS-400
Mission typeCrew rescue
Mission duration7 days
Spacecraft properties
SpacecraftSpace ShuttleEndeavour
Crew
Crew size
  • 4 up
  • 11 down
Members
Landing
Orbital parameters
Reference systemGeocentric
RegimeLow Earth
Inclination28.5 degrees
Comparison of International Space Station and Hubble Space Telescope orbits

STS-400was theSpace Shuttlecontingency support (Launch On Need) flight that would have been launched usingSpace ShuttleEndeavourif a major problem occurred onSpace ShuttleAtlantisduringSTS-125,the finalHubble Space Telescopeservicing mission (HST SM-4).[17][18][19][20]

Due to the much lowerorbital inclinationof the HST compared to the ISS, the shuttle crew would have been unable to use theInternational Space Stationas a "safe haven", and NASA would not have been able to follow the usual plan of recovering the crew with another shuttle at a later date.[19]Instead, NASA developed a plan to conduct a shuttle-to-shuttle rescue mission, similar toproposed rescue missions for pre-ISS flights.[19][21][22]The rescue mission would have been launched only three days after call-up and as early as seven days after the launch of STS-125, since the crew ofAtlantiswould only have about three weeks of consumables after launch.[18]

The mission was first rolled out in September 2008 toLaunch Complex 39Btwo weeks after the STS-125 shuttle was rolled out toLaunch Complex 39A,creating a rare scenario in which two shuttles were on launch pads at the same time.[19]In October 2008, however, STS-125 was delayed and rolled back to theVAB.

Initially, STS-125 was retargeted for no earlier than February 2009. This changed the STS-400 vehicle fromEndeavourtoDiscovery.The mission was redesignated STS-401 due to the swap fromEndeavourtoDiscovery.STS-125 was then delayed further, allowingDiscoverymissionSTS-119to fly beforehand. This resulted in the rescue mission reverting toEndeavour,and the STS-400 designation being reinstated.[20]In January, 2009, it was announced that NASA was evaluating conducting both launches from Complex 39A in order to avoid further delays toAres I-X,which, at the time, was scheduled for launch from LC-39B in the September 2009 timeframe.[20]It was planned that after the STS-125 mission in October 2008, Launch Complex 39B would undergo the conversion for use inProject Constellationfor theAres I-Xrocket.[20]Several of the members on the NASA mission management team said at the time (2009) that single-pad operations were possible, but the decision was made to use both pads.[18][19]

Crew[edit]

The crew assigned to this mission was a subset of theSTS-126crew:[18][23]

Position Launching Astronaut Landing Astronaut
Commander Christopher Ferguson
Pilot Eric A. Boe
Mission Specialist 1 Robert S. Kimbrough
Mission Specialist 2 Stephen G. Bowen
STS-125 Commander None Scott D. Altman
STS-125 Pilot None Gregory C. Johnson
STS-125
Mission Specialist 1 		None Michael T. Good
STS-125
Mission Specialist 2 		None Megan McArthur
STS-125
Mission Specialist 3 		None John M. Grunsfeld
STS-125
Mission Specialist 4 		None Michael J. Massimino
STS-125
Mission Specialist 5 		None Andrew J. Feustel

Early mission plans[edit]

Atlantis(foreground) andEndeavouron LC-39A and LC-39B in 2008.Endeavourwas slated to launch on theSTS-400rescue mission ifAtlantis(STS-125) was unable to return safely to Earth.

Three different concept mission plans were evaluated: The first would be to use a shuttle-to-shuttle docking, where the rescue shuttle docks with the damaged shuttle, by flying upside down and backwards, relative to the damaged shuttle.[22]It was unclear whether this would be practical, as the forward structure of either orbiter could collide with the payload bay of the other, resulting in damage to both orbiters. The second option that was evaluated, would be for the rescue orbiter to rendezvous with the damaged orbiter, and performstation-keepingwhile using itsRemote Manipulator System(RMS) to transfer crew from the damaged orbiter. This mission plan would result in heavy fuel consumption. The third concept would be for the damaged orbiter to grapple the rescue orbiter using its RMS, eliminating the need for station-keeping.[23]The rescue orbiter would then transfer crew using its RMS, as in the second option, and would be more fuel efficient than the station-keeping option.[22]

The concept that was eventually decided upon was a modified version of the third concept. The rescue orbiter would use its RMS to grapple the end of the damaged orbiter's RMS.[17][24]

Preparations[edit]

Diagram showing one of the proposals for crew and equipment transfers during STS-400.

After its most recent mission (STS-123),Endeavourwas taken to theOrbiter Processing Facilityfor routine maintenance. Following the maintenance,Endeavourwas on stand-by forSTS-326which would have been flown in the case thatSTS-124would not have been able to return to Earth safely. Stacking of thesolid rocket boosters(SRB) began on 11 July 2008. One month later, theexternal tankarrived at KSC and was mated with the SRBs on 29 August 2008.Endeavourjoined the stack on 12 September 2008 and was rolled out to Pad 39B one week later.

Since STS-126 launched before STS-125,Atlantiswas rolled back to the VAB on 20 October, andEndeavourrolled around to Launch Pad 39A on 23 October. When it was time to launch STS-125,Atlantisrolled out to pad 39A.[20]

Mission plan[edit]

The Mission would not have included the extended heatshield inspection normally performed on flight day two.[17][19]Instead, an inspection would have been performed after the crew was rescued.[17][19]On flight day two,Endeavourwould have performed the rendezvous and grapple withAtlantis.[17][23]On flight day three, the firstEVAwould have been performed.[17][19][23]During the first EVA, Megan McArthur, Andrew Feustel and John Grunsfeld would have set up a tether between the airlocks.[18][19]They would have also transferred a large sizeExtravehicular Mobility Unit(EMU) and, after McArthur had repressurized, transferred McArthur's EMU back toAtlantis.Afterwards they would have repressurized onEndeavour,ending flight day two activities.[17]

The final two EVA were planned for flight day three.[17][19]During the first, Grunsfeld would have depressurized onEndeavourin order to assist Gregory Johnson and Michael Massimino in transferring an EMU toAtlantis.He and Johnson would then repressurize onEndeavour,and Massimino would have gone back toAtlantis.[17]He, along with Scott Altman and Michael Good would have taken the rest of the equipment and themselves toEndeavourduring the final EVA. They would have been standing by in case the RMS system should malfunction.[24]The damaged orbiter would have been commanded by the ground to deorbit and go through landing procedures over the Pacific, with the impact area being north of Hawaii.[18][19]On flight day five,Endeavourwould have had a full heat shield inspection, and land on flight day eight.[17][18][19]

This mission could have marked the end of the Space Shuttle program, as it is considered unlikely that the program would have been able to continue with just two remainingorbiters,DiscoveryandEndeavour.[25]

On Thursday, 21 May 2009, NASA officially releasedEndeavourfrom the rescue mission, freeing the orbiter to begin processing forSTS-127.This also allowed NASA to continue processing LC-39B for the upcoming Ares I-X launch, as during the stand-down period, NASA installed a new lightning protection system, similar to those found on theAtlas VandDelta IVpads, to protect the newer, taller Ares I rocket from lightning strikes.[26][27]

STS-335[edit]

STS-134was the last scheduled flight of the Shuttle program. Because no more were planned after this, a special mission was developed as STS-335 to act as the LON mission for this flight. This would have pairedAtlantiswithET-122,which had been refurbished following damage byHurricane Katrina.[28]Since there would be no next mission, STS-335 would also carry aMulti-Purpose Logistics Modulefilled with supplies to replenish the station.[29]

The Senate authorizedSTS-135as a regular flight on 5 August 2010,[30]followed by the House on 29 September 2010,[31]and later signed by President Obama on 11 October 2010.[32]However funding for the mission remained dependent on a subsequent appropriations bill.

Nonetheless NASA converted STS-335, the final Launch On Need mission, into an operational mission (STS-135) on 20 January 2011.[33]On 13 February 2011, program managers told their workforce that STS-135 would fly "regardless" of the funding situation via a continuing resolution.[34]Finally the U.S. government budget approved in mid-April 2011 called for $5.5 billion for NASA's space operations division, including the Space Shuttle and space station programs. According to NASA, the budget running through 30 September 2011 ended all concerns about funding the STS-135 mission.[35]

With the successful completion of STS-134, STS-335 was rendered unnecessary and launch preparations for STS-135 continued asAtlantisneared LC-39A during her rollout as STS-134 landed at the nearbyShuttle Landing Facility.[36]

For the STS-135, no shuttle was available for a rescue mission.A different rescue planwas devised, involving the four crew members remaining aboard the International Space Station, and returning aboardSoyuzspacecraft one at a time over the next year. That contingency was not required.

References[edit]

  1. ^"Flight Readiness Review Briefing, Transcript of press briefing carried on NASA TV"(PDF).NASA. 17 June 2006.
  2. ^abc"Contingency Shuttle Crew Support (CSCS)/Rescue Flight Resource Book"(PDF).NASA. 12 July 2005.
  3. ^Engineering for Complex Systems Knowledge Engineering for Safety and Success Project[dead link]
  4. ^"STS-121 Nasa Press Kit"(PDF).NASA. May 2006. Archived fromthe original(PDF)on 23 July 2006.
  5. ^"NASA Launch Schedule"(PDF).NASA Via Hipstersunite. 2 November 2006. Archived fromthe original(PDF)on 9 January 2007.
  6. ^Nasa Assurance Technology Center News ArticleArchived2 December 2007 at theWayback Machine
  7. ^abBergin, Chris (7 February 2008)."STS-122: Atlantis launches – Endeavour LON doubt".NASAspaceflight.
  8. ^"STS-114 Flight Readiness Review Presentation"(PDF).NASA. 29 June 2005. Archived fromthe original(PDF)on 11 August 2006.
  9. ^Kestenbaum, David (29 June 2006)."Emergency Rescue Plans in Place for Astronauts".NPR.Retrieved19 September2006.
  10. ^USA Master Template - Revised
  11. ^Bergin, Chris (7 August 2006)."NASA enhancing unmanned orbiter capability".NASASpaceflight.
  12. ^Malik, Tariq (29 June 2006)."Shuttle to Carry Tools for Repair and Remote-Control Landing".Space.
  13. ^Karimov, A.G. (1997). "Control of Onboard Complex of Equipment". In Lozino-Lozinsky, G.E.; Bratukhin., A.G. (eds.).Aerospace Systems: Book of Technical Papers(ZIP MSWORD).Moscow: Publishing House of Moscow Aviation Institute. p. 206.Retrieved3 August2011.The structure is built with allowance for three possible Orbiter's control modes: automatic, manual and under commands from the ground-based control complex (GBCC).
  14. ^"X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle".Office of the Secretary of the Air Force (Public Affairs). Archived fromthe originalon 1 August 2013.Retrieved12 July2011.
  15. ^"X-37 Demonstrator to Test Future Launch Technologies in Orbit and Reentry Environments".NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. May 2003.Retrieved12 July2011.
  16. ^Contingency Shuttle Crew Support (CSCS)/Rescue Flight Resource Book. 12 July 2005p. 101
  17. ^abcdefghijNASAMission Operations Directorate (2 June 2008)."STS-400 Flight Plan"(PDF).NASA.Retrieved19 May2009.
  18. ^abcdefgNASA (5 May 2009)."STS-400: Ready and Waiting".NASA.Retrieved17 May2009.
  19. ^abcdefghijklAtkinson, Nancy (17 April 2009)."The STS-400 Shuttle Rescue Mission Scenario".Universe Today.Retrieved18 May2009.
  20. ^abcdeBergin, Chris (19 January 2009)."STS-125/400 Single Pad option progress – aim to protect Ares I-X".NASASpaceflight.Retrieved19 January2009.
  21. ^Bergin, Chris (9 May 2006)."Hubble Servicing Mission moves up".NASASpaceflight.Retrieved16 October2007.
  22. ^abcCopella, John (31 July 2007)."NASA Evaluates Rescue Options for Hubble Mission".NASASpaceflight.Retrieved16 October2007.
  23. ^abcdNASA (9 September 2008)."STS-125 Mission Overview Briefing Materials".NASA.Retrieved17 May2009.
  24. ^abBergin, Chris (11 October 2007)."STS-400 – NASA draws up their Hubble rescue plans".NASASpaceflight.Retrieved16 October2007.
  25. ^Watson, Traci (22 March 2005)."The mission NASA hopes won't happen".USA Today.Retrieved13 September2006.
  26. ^Harwood, William (21 May 2009)."Iffy weather forecast for Friday's shuttle landing".CBS News, Spaceflightnow.Retrieved22 May2009.
  27. ^Bergin, Chris (22 May 2009)."Endeavour in STS-127 flow".NASA Spaceflight.Retrieved24 May2009.
  28. ^Bergin, Chris (26 April 2009)."Downstream processing and planning – preparing the fleet through to STS-135".NASASpaceflight.Retrieved14 June2009.
  29. ^Bergin, Chris (13 October 2009)."NASA Evaluate STS-335/STS-133 Cross Country Farewell".NASASpaceflight.
  30. ^Clark, Stephen (6 August 2010)."Senate approves bill adding extra space shuttle flight".Spaceflight Now Inc.
  31. ^Abrams, Jim (30 September 2010)."NASA bill passed by Congress would allow for one additional shuttle flight in 2011".ABC Action News. Archived fromthe originalon 7 July 2011.
  32. ^Amos, Jonathan (11 October 2010)."Obama signs Nasa up to new future".BBC News.
  33. ^"Dean, James" Atlantis officially named final shuttle mission "(23 January 2010)Florida Today".Archived fromthe originalon 26 September 2011.Retrieved21 January2011.
  34. ^NASA managers insist STS-135 will fly – Payload options under assessmentNASASpaceFlight
  35. ^Clark, Stephen (21 April 2011)."Federal budget pays for summer shuttle flight".Spaceflight Now.Retrieved23 April2011.
  36. ^Endeavour arrives home one final time to conclude STS-134 | NASASpaceFlight

External links[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=STS-3xx&oldid=1216948302"