No New Shuttle Flight Unless Rescue Mission Can Be Guaranteed
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/shuttle-05y.html
Washington (AFP) Mar 22, 2005
The United States will not resume shuttle flights unless it has a support
shuttle ready to carry out rescues in space, the US space agency said
Tuesday.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration suspended shuttle missions
after the Columbia disaster in February 2003. It had hoped to stage a new
flight in May this year with the shuttle Discovery.
But NASA said a new flight would not be held if a second shuttle could not
be launched in time to rescue a crew on the International Space Station.
"In the unlikely event that all of our efforts to reduce risk and safely
return the space shuttle to flight have failed, we have made plans to keep
the space shuttle crew on the International Space Station and mount a rescue
mission," NASA said in its latest report on preparations for shuttle
flights.
"For the near term, we will not launch a space shuttle unless the second
shuttle can be prepared and launched within the time the International Space
Station can provide accommodation for the first shuttle's crew."
Atlantis is generally considered the reserve shuttle of the three remaining
vessels. NASA said a rescue mission would only be carried out "in the most
dire of circumstances and will not be used to justify flying unsafely."
Columbia broke up as it re-entered Earth's atmosphere on February 1, 2003,
killing all seven crew. Following criticism of NASA procedures, the other
three shuttles have been grounded since.
All rights reserved. © 2005 Agence France-Presse. Sections of the
information displayed on this page (dispatches, photographs, logos) are
protected by intellectual property rights owned by Agence France-Presse. As
a consequence, you may not copy, reproduce, modify, transmit, publish,
display or in any way commercially exploit any of the content of this
section without the prior written consent of Agence France-Presse.

Signature
--------------
Jacques :-)
www.spacepatches.info
Jim Oberg - 23 Mar 2005 14:42 GMT
> But NASA said a new flight would not be held if a second shuttle could not
> be launched in time to rescue a crew on the International Space Station.
The unwritten subtext is -- don't count on STS-121 going in July.
digicross@hotmail.com - 23 Mar 2005 15:59 GMT
Maybe the more precise way to say it is 'don't count on on another
S.T.S. launch again'?
John Wilcock - 23 Mar 2005 16:31 GMT
>>But NASA said a new flight would not be held if a second shuttle could not
>>be launched in time to rescue a crew on the International Space Station.
>
> The unwritten subtext is -- don't count on STS-121 going in July.
After STS-114, Discovery's next flight is scheduled for December.
Presumably the plan is to hurry through the minimal turnaround work so
that it can be ready for a hypothetical STS-301 rescue mission in
August, then do the rest of the preparation for STS-115 once STS-121 is
safely back on the ground.
Just how quickly can the turnaround be done? How much can STS-114 slip
before STS-121 is forced to slip into the September window (or later)?
For that matter, does the minimal turnaround needed to be ready for a
rescue mission result in much extra work in preparing for the subsequent
nominal mission?
John.

Signature
-- Over 2500 webcams from ski resorts around the world - www.snoweye.com
-- Translate your technical documents and web pages - www.tradoc.fr
Andrew Lotosky - 26 Mar 2005 22:10 GMT
> Just how quickly can the turnaround be done? How much can STS-114 slip
> before STS-121 is forced to slip into the September window (or later)?
>
> For that matter, does the minimal turnaround needed to be ready for a
> rescue mission result in much extra work in preparing for the subsequent
> nominal mission?
As ISS got started up, didn't KSC do a lot of preperation for a high
flight rate, and tighter turn-around times. For example, during the
brief stand-down after STS 93 weren't Endeavour, Atlantis and Discovery
essentially in different processing stages at the same time so they
could be launched in rapid succession (STS 103, STS 99, STS 101) once
they were flying again?
Of course post-Columbia, I don't think NASA is in any position to
demand "faster" work from KSC employees and that for the near future,
shuttles will be undergoing some closer inspection while in the
turn-around flow.
-A.L.
Nick Hull - 26 Mar 2005 17:45 GMT
> > But NASA said a new flight would not be held if a second shuttle could not
> > be launched in time to rescue a crew on the International Space Station.
>
> The unwritten subtext is -- don't count on STS-121 going in July.
Can a rescue mission be launched without a guaranteed rescue rescue
mission?

Signature
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/
Andy P. Jung - 28 Mar 2005 20:19 GMT
>> > But NASA said a new flight would not be held if a second shuttle could
>> > not
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Can a rescue mission be launched without a guaranteed rescue rescue
> mission?
Now wouldn't that be something with all three shuttles simultaneously in
space!

Signature
Andy P. Jung
Metairie, Louisiana U.S.A.
(Home of Senator David Vitter)
http://www.JungWorld.com/
To reply via e-mail, please visit my web site.
Greg D. Moore (Strider) - 29 Mar 2005 03:24 GMT
> > > But NASA said a new flight would not be held if a second shuttle could not
> > > be launched in time to rescue a crew on the International Space Station.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Can a rescue mission be launched without a guaranteed rescue rescue
> mission?
Yes, in fact it's the only way it can be launched.
Nick Hull - 29 Mar 2005 13:38 GMT
> > > > But NASA said a new flight would not be held if a second shuttle could
> not
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Yes, in fact it's the only way it can be launched.
Of course the rescue rescue mission must be launched much faster since
the space station if filling up fast.

Signature
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/
LooseChanj - 30 Mar 2005 20:48 GMT
> Can a rescue mission be launched without a guaranteed rescue rescue
> mission?
No, because at that point you've run out of orbiters.

Signature
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | Just because something
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | is possible, doesn't
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | mean it can happen
John Doe - 30 Mar 2005 22:22 GMT
Slightly different twist to the question:
Lets assume Discovery's ET tank has some problem, sheds foam, causes big
time scratch, requiring a rescue mission.
Would Atlantis' ET have been made from the same "batch" with the same
materials/design/people, or would NASA require that Atlantis's ET be
made of a separate vintage to reduce the probability tht Atlantis would
also suffer the safe fate ? And in reality, is it feasable to have ETs
of different vintage considering that previous vintages are known to be
faulty ?
(SRBs would not really be an issue since a problem with an SRB is likely
to be fatal well before shuttle reaches orbit).
gene@pad39a.com - 29 Mar 2005 03:13 GMT
If a rescue flight could be guarenteed, then it wouldn't be needed.
--
Gene Seibel
Space Ship One - http://pad39a.com/gene/ss1.html
Because I fly, I envy no one - except Mike Melvill.