The planned STS-125 Atlantis mission to Hubble includes a potential
STS-400 rescue mission with Endeavour. Would NASA attempt to save
Atlantis through a remote controlled landing using the RCO cable?

It was my understanding that the RCO cable is stored on ISS, and thus
would be unavailable for STS-125. Would they supply a second cable or
"borrow" the RCO cable from ISS in advance? (At the cost of 6 pounds or
so on the next mission to return it to ISS).

Well they are talking bout pensioning off Atlantis, and depending on any
damage being unfixable, maybe they would just leave it somewhere. Besides,
surely they would send up someone who could add some repair materials, and
they would already have two pilots, so provided they were sure about the
fix, where is the problem, If its knackered, just put it out of harms way,
if its not fix it and fly it back.

The planned STS-125 Atlantis mission to Hubble includes a potential
STS-400 rescue mission with Endeavour. Would NASA attempt to save
Atlantis through a remote controlled landing using the RCO cable?

It was my understanding that the RCO cable is stored on ISS, and thus
would be unavailable for STS-125. Would they supply a second cable or
"borrow" the RCO cable from ISS in advance? (At the cost of 6 pounds or
so on the next mission to return it to ISS).

charliexmur...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Apr 21, 8:26 am, "Brian Gaff" <Bria...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Well they are talking bout pensioning off Atlantis, and depending on any
damage being unfixable, maybe they would just leave it somewhere. Besides,
surely they would send up someone who could add some repair materials, and
they would already have two pilots, so provided they were sure about the
fix, where is the problem, If its knackered, just put it out of harms way,
if its not fix it and fly it back.

Not doable. The vehicle would be electrically dead and
uncontrollable. That is the reason for the destructive entry

If that is true, why were the RCO cables built at all?

On Apr 21, 8:26 am, "Brian Gaff" <Bria...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Well they are talking bout pensioning off Atlantis, and depending on any
damage being unfixable, maybe they would just leave it somewhere. Besides,
surely they would send up someone who could add some repair materials, and
they would already have two pilots, so provided they were sure about the
fix, where is the problem, If its knackered, just put it out of harms way,
if its not fix it and fly it back.


Not doable. The vehicle would be electrically dead and
uncontrollable. That is the reason for the destructive entry

Not doable. The vehicle would be electrically dead and
uncontrollable. That is the reason for the destructive entry

On Apr 21, 12:54 pm, Marissa Payton <mariss...@spam.none> wrote:
charliexmur...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Apr 21, 8:26 am, "Brian Gaff" <Bria...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Well they are talking bout pensioning off Atlantis, and depending on any
damage being unfixable, maybe they would just leave it somewhere. Besides,
surely they would send up someone who could add some repair materials, and
they would already have two pilots, so provided they were sure about the
fix, where is the problem, If its knackered, just put it out of harms way,
if its not fix it and fly it back.
Not doable. The vehicle would be electrically dead and
uncontrollable. That is the reason for the destructive entry
If that is true, why were the RCO cables built at all?

He referred to "unfixable" damage and coming back to it.

The RCO cables do a few more things than just lowering the gear, some
are needed for deorbit, whether it is for an unmanned landing or
destructive entry

charliexmur...@yahoo.com wrote:
Not doable. The vehicle would be electrically dead and
uncontrollable. That is the reason for the destructive entry

Don't know what your definition of "electrically dead" is. But in my
mind, if there is an orbiter in that condition, they wouldn't even be
able to fire the de-orbit burn and the shuttle would be worse off than
skylab. It wouldn't be a "destructive entry", it would be a
"uncontrolled re-entry" probably a few years after the event until the
orbit decays sufficiently.

Consider that Hubble is high enough that it doesn't need frequent
reboosts from the shuttle. A shuttle in that orbit would take a very
long time to de-orbit by itself if it were electrically dead.

they might also blow it up like that spy sat. perhaps with a warhead?

wonder how much of a shuttle would survive re entry after a
intentional attack?

they might also blow it up like that spy sat. perhaps with a warhead?

wonder how much of a shuttle would survive re entry after a
intentional attack?

bob haller safety advocate wrote:
I think doing that would be worse. If it reenters in one piece and
breaks up during re-entry, there is little or nothing left in orbit to
cause problems. Yes, there is a chance of large portions reach the
ground (as it did in Texas).

There is one hardware hack that is required regardless of whether a
disposal or recovery via RCO is to be attempted. That is for the crew to
power off DC bus main B, "hotwire" the undocking pushbutton on panel
A7L, then egress. Once the hatches are closed, MCC can start the
undocking simply by sending a command to re-power main B.

maybe a minor nit.. but didn't the vehicle pretty much break up
post-reentry? or at least in the late-late stages of re-entry. so if the
orbiter was somehow fragmented or otherwise broken apart prior to the
entry interface any surviving pieces would be pretty much on the way to
vaporized when they reached the point columbia came apart... ?

-r (pure speculation.. i claim no brains were involved in the making of
this post)