Star, would you mind stepping in here?

Hey all,

I still lurk from time to time!

I'm hoping someone (Star?) can confirm what I see here: http://www.nasa.gov/missions/highlights/schedule.html (Look at May 12th and 15th)

Are NASA really getting two shuttles away within 4 days of each other? From the same pad! I know they wanted a second shuttle ready for launch for the mission to the Hubble as the ISS can't be reached in the event of a problem but it looks like the second shuttle is being launched before the first returns?

The main reason I ask is I've just booked our holiday to Florida for our 3rd anniversary (13th May). Staying a couple of miles from Cape Canaveral. I really want to see at least one launch, hoping for two!

Also, anyone up for a geekfest in Florida sometime between 7th and 20th May?

 

Hi Rex...STS-125 is the Hubble Servicing Flight, that launch date is extremely tentative and not likely to happen. It's been delayed 5 times, the last three times due to unexpected Hubble failures. If in fact 125 does go up on 12 May, STS-127 (an ISS mission) would go up on 13 June. If 125 does not go up, 127 would go up on 15 May. Weather permitting on all these dates of course. There is no way shuttle launches could occur three days apart due to the amount of work required to get the pad ready after a launch and the next orbiter fueled for launch. 39A is the only available working launch pad of the two that have launched Shuttles, 39B is being retrofitted for the new Ares Moon Rockets and the 1-X test flight in July. A rescue Shuttle would be readied on 39B in case it is needed on either mission, then rolled over to 39A for launch. And keep in mind all these dates are subject to change or unexpected circumstances.

We'll try and see if we can meet up with you, the weeks leading up to a launch are extremely busy for me. By the way, how is Maddie?

 

sorry to poke my noes in here, but do you work for nasa or something?

 

Yes.

 

No he's really lying

 

heh heh heh...keep it up Jon; the next review I have on my blog of your band will have you sounding like a mix of Cindy Lauper and Tiny Tim :-D

 

Cheers Star,

I thought it was unlikely but didn't realise 39B was being retrofitted. I thought somebody had made a mistake on the website!

Just out of interest, if something did go wrong with STS-125, how long would it take to get the backup rolled across and launched? I'm assuming you would have 10-12 days at least to play with?

Well, work hard (I know you do!) and try to get one away while we're there, last time we missed a launch by two weeks. That was when I'd just finished school, about 12 years ago! It would be good to meet up for a drink or a meal at some point, will see how busy you are closer to the time.

Maddy has got a new(ish) boyfriend and a new job and is not being turfed out of home yet, so not doing too bad. I'll tell her to pop in.

 

We've got a six-day contingency plan that is about as quick as it's going to happen, and that's without any glitches. There's a minimum 72-hour countdown required after all the systems are synched, the cryogenics up and running, all the programming for that particular mission loaded into the computers, and then the fueling process would begin. And that's strictly for a rescue mission, no way we'd try and launch a separate planned mission that quickly. This last Hubble flight cannot reach the ISS if they have problems(the Hubble orbit is much higher); a second Shuttle would have to go get them.

Let me or Abby know more as you know it, we'll see what we can work out. It would be pretty cool to meet. Also, please tell Maddie best of luck with her new(ish) boyfriend. It should work out well for them, being she also happens to be his new(ish) girlfriend.

 

Why exactly is it impossible to reach a lower target from a higher orbit? And yes, I realise it's equivalent to trying to deflect one bullet with another while the first is already in flight.

 

Hi Triaxx2...it's not impossible, however the Shuttle carries a finite amount of fuel and the amount needed to adjust the orbit from Hubble down to the ISS simple exceeds the supply. And the position of each object in orbit (say either side of the planet), the amount of space junk to dodge (over 7000 items currently tracked) also factor into launch times and other considerations which would effect this also. Short bursts of the RC jets could do it over time, however the consumables would run out before the orbit could be matched. You actually catch a target quicker from a lower orbit-less distance, more speed, then you pop up and dock. Slowing down to adjust an orbit uses considerably more fuel.

 

Ya, as I would envisage as much, (more?), fuel would be used to (de)accelerate than to speed up, (accelerate). Why? - Because a moving object in space must first counteract the forward movement before slowing down, (which is acceleration, but in the (-)ve sense, so to speak. Going in 'reverse', (not that there is one as such), would require; (de)accelerating to zero, (stopped relative to object to be 'stopped' by), then 'accelerating' in reverse. Not a brilliant way of going about it. I imagine one must calculate ‘relative vectors’ and such in reality. [Edit:-Not to mention the 'slosh waves' of liquid fuel.]

~ Then again, I may be way the track, (if you'll excuse the intentional irony), as I'm not the P.L.S. expert by any stretch of the imagination, lol.:-o

 

Ah, that makes sense then.

 

Incidentally Chris, I'll have an ep for you to review come April