Slashdot Log In
Endeavour Rolled Out As Rescue Ship
Posted by
Soulskill
on Sat Sep 20, 2008 08:15 AM
from the two-for-the-price-of-two dept.
from the two-for-the-price-of-two dept.
stoolpigeon writes "The space shuttle Endeavour was rolled out to Launch Pad 39B yesterday. Space shuttle Atlantis is already at Launch Pad 39A, being made ready for the STS-125 mission to repair Hubble. We recently got a look at some behind-the-scenes photos for this mission. Endeavour is now in place to act as a rescue vehicle if there are any problems with Atlantis, once they are in space. This is the first time one shuttle has been prepared to act as a rescue vehicle for another. If all goes well for STS-125, Endeavour will move over to 39A to be used for STS-126."
Related Stories
[+]
How NASA Prepares To Rescue Hubble, In Photos 37 comments
Jamie pointed out a fantastic set of photos up at The Boston Globe, illustrating the painstaking preparations underway for the Shuttle mission to rescue the Hubble telescope. "This will be the final servicing mission to Hubble, the 30th flight of the 23-year old Atlantis, and one of the final 10 flights of the Space Shuttle program, which will be retired in 2010." Refreshingly, they've decided to include a many of the behind-the-scenes techies and the equipment they steward, rather than just the launch vehicles and crew.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Direct link (Score:5, Informative)
Also, karma whore.
Maybe its NASA's entry... (Score:3, Funny)
in this [rocketracingleague.com]
Tow Truck? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Tow Truck? (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is exactly what you do if a tow truck breaks down.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How is it that the guy repeating your point got +5 Insightful and you get bupkis? The mods work in mysterious ways.
what is it going to do ? (Score:2)
Hook up and pull them if they get stranded ?
Collect the bits in case the original craft explodes ?
This makes very little sense to me, admittedly I don't know very much about rocketry but the few times that things went wrong a rescue vehicle would have only compounded the problem, not mitigated it. If there still is enough of the original craft left to do something about the astronauts then sending up a similar craft sounds like a pretty dumb idea, first you'd need to figure out the cause of the problem befo
Re:what is it going to do ? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually yes, that's the idea. The concern is that the ever so fragile titles may be greatly damaged ala Columbia, in which case someone needs to come pick up the astronauts stranded in Atlantis, because it can't be flown back in to the Earth's atmosphere and it can't be flown to the ISS. Since the Columbia incident all missions have been to the ISS or to a point in space where you can reach the ISS. This is not possible with the Hubble mission, it's too far away for the shuttle's limited fuel supply.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Where are you going to find an additional 7 seats?
Even if you can pilot a rescue shuttle with 2, where's the standing room?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Put a crew module in the cargo area?
The rescue mission doesnt have a payload to fill it anyways...
Re:what is it going to do ? (Score:5, Informative)
This is in case there is a problem on launch that allows Atlantis to make it to orbit, but it is too damaged to safely return. They would launch Endeavour to join Atlantis in orbit, they would use the robotic arms to pull the two vehicles together and then transfer crew from one to the other.
This msnbc article on it [msn.com] has some more details. I'd have linked that article for the submission - but I didn't see it until later, and the NASA site didn't have a permalink for their page on it at the time.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I believe it is related to the recent problems with the shuttles where they've noticed problems that could (and did) result in disaster on re-entry. In such a situation it's probably nice to have a backup shuttle to be able to rescue the crew of the damaged shuttle.
That said, I've always wondered why it isn't standard procedure to have a sort of "rescue capsule" ready for launch during shuttle missions. I suspect cost is one of the reasons...
/Mikael
Re: (Score:2)
that makes some sense but because the two craft are equal in design the chances that the second shuttle would develop the same problem are actually higher than if the first one did not have a problem...
I really don't get the logic behind this, but presumably nasa has some very smart people working for them and they know their stuff.
Re:what is it going to do ? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the odds of a specific problem with a shuttle occurring are 1 in 100, the odds of it the same problem occurring on TWO shuttles at the same time is 1 in 10,000, not 1 in 100.
You're taking for granted that once a problem occurs, the odds that "it could occur" are no longer 1 in 100, they are 1:1 because it HAS occurred. In other words, the odds of a double failure pre-launch is 1:10,000. The odds of a double failure, once you HAVE a single failure, is 1:100. Until the single failure occurs, the odds remain at 1:10,000.
Parent
Re:what is it going to do ? (Score:4, Insightful)
If the odds of a specific problem with a shuttle occurring are 1 in 100, the odds of it the same problem occurring on TWO shuttles at the same time is 1 in 10,000, not 1 in 100.
You're taking for granted that once a problem occurs, the odds that "it could occur" are no longer 1 in 100, they are 1:1 because it HAS occurred. In other words, the odds of a double failure pre-launch is 1:10,000. The odds of a double failure, once you HAVE a single failure, is 1:100. Until the single failure occurs, the odds remain at 1:10,000.
The point the parent is making is that if a particular problem occurs then it might mean that the design has a previously unknown flaw that makes that problem more likely than original estimates. So pre-launch the chance is 1 in 100 for each shuttle, which makes 1 in 10,000 for both. But if the first shuttle develops the problem then it might mean that the 1 in 100 was wrong - maybe it's actually 1 in 20. Now you're looking at launching a rescue mission with a vehicle that might have a 1 in 20 chance of failing, and you've got no time to properly assess the risk.
Parent
Re:what is it going to do ? (Score:4, Interesting)
I think the idea is that if on the way up a shuttle sustains the type of damage to the heat shield that ultimately destroyed the last one on the way down, they can send up the rescue craft.
By careful examination of the craft after it gets up there (which they seem to do now) they can ascertain if it is in fit shape to make the journey home, other wise it stays up there and presumably the crew all get into the ISS and wait for the rescue craft to arrive.
Of course if the rescue shuttle is also too badly damaged on the way up then they are screwed.. unless they bring a 'shuttle repair kit' with them.
I was wondering though does the ISS have more than one place to dock a shuttle? Or do they have to somehow undock the damaged craft after the crew disembark and then dock the rescue craft? Or does the whole rescue process happen while both craft are undocked and the crew do a cool space dive between shuttles?
Parent
Re:what is it going to do ? (Score:5, Informative)
I was wondering though does the ISS have more than one place to dock a shuttle? Or do they have to somehow undock the damaged craft after the crew disembark and then dock the rescue craft? Or does the whole rescue process happen while both craft are undocked and the crew do a cool space dive between shuttles?
The damaged orbiter is undocked first by remote control from the ground. The crew needs to install a cable to allow the command to open the docking system hooks (which is normally a push button the crew performs on the aft flight deck) to be sent from the ground.
If you really want to see everything in excruciating detail, this NASA pdf has it...
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/153444main_CSCS_Resource_%20Book.pdf [nasa.gov]
Parent
Just want to be able to meet their SLA (Score:2, Funny)
NASA are just making sure they're prepared just in case the Atlantis crew break down and call up claiming that they are a lone female with kids in the spacecraft. Don't forget it will be night time wherever they are.
And yet NASA will complain about their budget... (Score:2)
Something about this stinks of... something. Corporate profit taking, perhaps.
In any case, considering the small number of situations this could help in, NASA shouldn't be complaining about budget cuts if dropping the billion or more dollars to prep a second launch is considered frugal.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The cost is actually far less than you believe. The "rescue" shuttle is simply the vehicle for the next flight (minus payload). It's already going through the normal processing flow to ready it for its planned launch in November. The additional cost to protect for a rescue mission is in the low millions.
Yes but... (Score:2)
who will be the rescue ship for Endeavour?
Possible maturity evident? (Score:3, Insightful)
Good job NASA.
Re:Possible maturity evident? (Score:5, Insightful)
More accurately, it's a sign of the hype and hysteria surround space flight and astronauts that such expensive precautions must be taken - when there are thousands of USN submariners at sea right now with no viable hope should something go seriously wrong. Not to mention the hundreds of people who winter over in Antarctica each year. Not to mention the hundred of scientists and crew at sea on USNS research vessels. (A friend of mine is in the middle of the Pacific right now - hundreds of miles from land and well off the shipping lanes. It would take over a day for a search aircraft to reach them - and most of a week for a rescue ship to do so.)
The submariners have rescue vessels standing by, sorta - we were told to expect to wait a week or more back in the 1980's, and our capabilities have declined sharply since then. None of the others have dedicated rescue capability standing by.
And that's just the government jobs...
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But do those submarines have relatively obvious unfixed failure modes the way the Shuttle does? It's one thing to have no protection from unknown problems and rather different to know that there's a problem with a significant chance of killing you but taking no precautions against it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apples and oranges. Surface vessels have lifeboats, for submarines there's the rescue vessels you mention, but until now, astronauts who stranded in space were SOL. NASA said in the past that should this happen, they'd take the next available shuttle and reassemble it as quickly as possible, but they recognized that this would probably be too late. With the Shuttle failure rate being what it is, having a second one on standby IMO isn't responding to hysteria, it's prudent. You'll notice submarines don't hav
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
With the failure rate so low, it's responding to hysteria.
The standby Shuttle has been rolled out weeks before it would have been rolled out for it's next mission - which means it will be exposed to the elements for weeks longer than it would otherwise have been. B
Wondering about the docking ring for Hubble (Score:4, Insightful)
Will it be possible to dock a remote controlled craft to it? If yes, wouldn't it make sense to design one that can move the HST to an orbit with a different inclination so it can be serviced again in a couple of years? There was talk about de-orbiting Hubble safely at the end of its life, so why not "de-orbit" it to an orbit that's close to the ISS?
Re:Wondering about the docking ring for Hubble (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Why move Endeavour to pad 39A? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why move Endeavour to pad 39A? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
no high resolution photos (Score:2)
Sadly, no-one has ever released a high resolution photo of a double shuttle stack & probably never will.
Re: (Score:2)
http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/imageviewer.cfm?mediaid=37485&mr=l&w=0&h=0&fn=08pd2737&sn=KSC-08pd-2737 [nasa.gov]
Three possibilities! (Score:2)
"Crap, send up a shuttle to rescue us!"
"Oh, double crap. We just lost 2/3rds of the shuttle fleet in one shot and crapped out the US Space Program!"
Re:That's confidence... (Score:5, Informative)
I think all the missions since the Columbia accident have been to the ISS. (I could be wrong - just going by memory) And when they go there they have multiple options for getting back, other than the shuttle they took to get up there.
When Atlantis goes to Hubble - if they have a Colombia repeat - with damage to a wing or something- they will have no way to come down safely. This gives them one option.
Parent
Re:That's confidence... (Score:4, Interesting)
I know the media is latching on to this, but if you look at the mission articles in Wikipedia since Columbia, there has been a "rescue mission" for EVERY flight. It seems that the only difference here is that this rescue mission is set to go at a moment's notice while other rescues would take some weeks to set up (as ISS is available for the rescue shelter).
Parent
Re:That's confidence... (Score:5, Interesting)
One other thing that is cool about it - in a purely subjective way - is that this is the last time 2 shuttles will be out on launch pads at the same time.
To get the full impact of this, one really needs to drive out there and take a look. Any time any of them are out there is just incredibly impressive. I know I've become pretty used to looking at pictures of the shuttle but every time I'm out at the space center or the wildlife refuge - I'm just blown away by the size of it all. This is all rather subjective, but it's still a big deal to me.
Parent
But not the first time... (Score:5, Informative)
STS-35 and STS-41 (yes, that long ago) were two shuttle missions that had its shuttles out on pads at the same time as well. Pictars:
http://www.ksc.nasa.gov/mirrors/images/images/pao/STS41/10064404.jpg [nasa.gov]
http://www.ksc.nasa.gov/mirrors/images/images/pao/STS41/10064405.jpg [nasa.gov]
Sadly they did not launch together.. now that'd be quite the sight.
Anyway, I'm hoping to see lots and lots of awesome imagery of this setup, as it will indeed most likely be the last time we'll be able to see this again outside of Hollywood.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
It's my understanding they've had 2 shuttles out at the same time - 17 times prior to this, but that this is the last, and the only time it was for the purpose of an emergency plan. Of course this is all stuff I've read on news sites - so any of it could be wrong. I don't work for NASA or have any inside info. on just what is going on.
Re: (Score:2)
That goes to show what a little grammar error can do to understanding. Put another way, whether the GP was right depends on what your definition of the word "is" is.
I think the GP intended to use the word "was".
Re:One faulty space truck to rescue another (Score:5, Funny)
we'll remember that next time your car breaks down and come and rescue you with a Piper Cub... or a Cushman Golf Cart... or something else essentially different from a Car.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
There is no escape from the car analogies.
Resistance is futile.
You will be Simile'ded.
Re: (Score:2)
The big difference is that in space there is no opportunity to walk home.
Re:One faulty space truck to rescue another (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:One faulty space truck to rescue another (Score:5, Insightful)
And the superior rescue vehicle they're going to use is...?
I mean what do you think they did when a Huey went down in Vietnam?
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Pay the Russians to get a Soyuz ready? Although it might take two trips...
Re:One faulty space truck to rescue another (Score:5, Informative)
Pay the Russians to get a Soyuz ready? Although it might take two trips...
The orbital inclination of Hubble is 28.5 degrees (essentially due east from Kennedy Space Center). The Soyuz pad at Baikonur is too far north to reach that inclination without doing a plane change, which takes more propellant than Soyuz carries.
Parent
Re:One faulty space truck to rescue another (Score:4, Informative)
He did say it might take two trips.
One Soyuz couldn't get there but two, flown serially, certainly could.
I think the extra trips was referring to the number of crew members onboard the orbiter (since Soyuz only has three seats, and really you do need two people to fly it).
I don't understand how flying Soyuz "serially" is going to get it to 28.5, if you could elaborate. The amount of propellant to do that kind of plane change is enormous, even the shuttle (which was designed do a lot of maneuvering) is only capable of doing a couple of degrees.
Parent
Re:One faulty space truck to rescue another (Score:5, Funny)
I don't think the Soyuz would have been a very good vehicle to rescue helicopter pilots in Vietnam.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily if the rescue vehicle didn't have enough cargo space or was substantially more expensive to operate. Of course there is no alternative vehicle they could use at the moment so the point is sort of moot.
Re: (Score:2)
Or it could be that the only way to rescue a shuttle crew going to Hubble is another shuttle? The Soyuz does not have the room to bring back a 7 man Shuttle crew IIRC. So is it more logical that it is a political dog and pony show or that another shuttle is the only option should something go wrong.
And remind me the track record of ESA doing manned missions again? When was the last time the Ariane rockets put a man into space again? Oh wait, I think all the ESA astronauts have gone into orbit either ato
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Launch Pad 39B was deactivated as a shuttle launch pad when the number of shuttle missions was slashed, and it currently being remodeled for the Ares rocket. They knew they were going to need 39B again for this shuttle mission, so they presumably left all the hardware in place so it could launch a shuttle if need be, but once 39A opens up again they are going to want to get the shuttle out of the way so they can continue with the remodeling.