Slashdot Mirror
Endeavour Rolled Out As Rescue Ship
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."
Direct link for the photos, since it's not actually in the article: http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/09/preparing_to_rescue_hubble.html
Also, karma whore.
in this
That is about as weird as a two truck towing a tow truck.
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.
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 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.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
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.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
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.
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?
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).
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.
Apparently two wrongs do make a right.
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?
The enemies of Democracy are
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.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
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.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
I think that this might be a sign of increasing maturity in the process for making decisions about the space program. It seems, at least a little, a bit more reasonable to prepare a rescue option for missions like this rather than simply strapping on the cowboy boots and riding some crazy contraption out of the atmosphere with no viable hope of coming back, should something go wrong. Even if it is the same type of craft as the one that it would be rescuing, this decision shows some initiative to make the space program into a less willy-nilly operation than it might have been in the past. It is, as has been mentioned above, really the only option for some sort of fall-back plan, should something go wrong on the way up.
Good job NASA.
If you don't know what you're doing, you can't make mistakes.
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.
Worst...sig...ever!
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
Worst...sig...ever!
There is no escape from the car analogies.
Resistance is futile.
You will be Simile'ded.
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.
Worst...sig...ever!
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.
Worst...sig...ever!
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?
thegodmovie.com - watch it
If Endeavour is all set to launch from pad 39B in the event of an emergency rescue mission, then why are they planning to move it across to 39A for the "regular" mission?
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
http://www.ksc.nasa.gov/mirrors/images/images/pao/STS41/10064405.jpg
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.
Put a crew module in the cargo area?
The rescue mission doesnt have a payload to fill it anyways...
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
The big difference is that in space there is no opportunity to walk home.
sure there is. Just watch that first step.
"You can see I know very little about pimp policy." George McGovern.
I don't think the Soyuz would have been a very good vehicle to rescue helicopter pilots in Vietnam.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
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.
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.
Sorry, I've already commented on this story, otherwise I'd mod you DOWN. In "regular" Shuttle missions, the destination is already to the ISS. If something goes wrong, they have time to wait at the ISS for another shuttle to be prepared and blasted up into space.
The reason *this* mission requires them both to be on the launch pad is because they *can't* get to the ISS, which you erroneously imply that they could. This has been mentioned in many comments, in most news stories, etc., etc.
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!