Another Question???

[Sean G.]

I certainly appreciate all the feedback on my last post....

I have another question however....

http://space.balettie.com/ShuttleHistory.html

Seems to me that several of the STS missions are not quite in sequence
numerically.

Why??


--
-------------------------------------------
Sean G.
Who is neither nasty, tricksy, nor false!

[Doug Ellison]

"Sean G." > wrote in message
...
> I certainly appreciate all the feedback on my last post....
>
> I have another question however....
>
> http://space.balettie.com/ShuttleHistory.html
>
> Seems to me that several of the STS missions are not quite in sequence
> numerically.
>
> Why??

They tend to get named in the order they're planned - but delays,
rescheduling etc mean they dont HAVE to launch in the same order they were
planned ( and thus named)

Doug

[cndc]

"Doug" writes:

> > http://space.balettie.com/ShuttleHistory.html
> >
> > Seems to me that several of the STS missions are not quite in sequence
> > numerically.
> >
> > Why??
>
> They tend to get named in the order they're planned - but delays,
> rescheduling etc mean they dont HAVE to launch in the same order
> they were planned ( and thus named)

Why does STS-51L have an L on the end?

Elizabeth

[Sean G.]

"Doug Ellison" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sean G." > wrote in message
> ...
> > I certainly appreciate all the feedback on my last post....
> >
> > I have another question however....
> >
> > http://space.balettie.com/ShuttleHistory.html
> >
> > Seems to me that several of the STS missions are not quite in sequence
> > numerically.
> >
> > Why??
>
> They tend to get named in the order they're planned - but delays,
> rescheduling etc mean they dont HAVE to launch in the same order they were
> planned ( and thus named)
>
> Doug
>
>

Interesting....

thanks.


--
-------------------------------------------------------
S.
Proud American Infidel since 1973

[Herb Schaltegger]

In article >,
cndc > wrote:

> "Doug" writes:
>
> > > http://space.balettie.com/ShuttleHistory.html
> > >
> > > Seems to me that several of the STS missions are not quite in sequence
> > > numerically.
> > >
> > > Why??
> >
> > They tend to get named in the order they're planned - but delays,
> > rescheduling etc mean they dont HAVE to launch in the same order
> > they were planned ( and thus named)
>
> Why does STS-51L have an L on the end?
>
> Elizabeth

Because it was scheduled for 1985, to be launched from KSC ("2" would
have indicated VAFB - which was never used, btw) and was "L" in the
alphabetical sequence when planned. Of course it was NOT the 51st
mission manifested or launched.

--
Herb Schaltegger, Esq.
Chief Counsel, Human O-Ring Society
"I was promised flying cars! Where are the flying cars?!"
~ Avery Brooks

[Dale]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 06:53:35 -0500, Herb Schaltegger > wrote:

>> Why does STS-51L have an L on the end?
>>
>> Elizabeth
>
>Because it was scheduled for 1985, to be launched from KSC ("2" would
>have indicated VAFB - which was never used, btw) and was "L" in the
>alphabetical sequence when planned.

Probably a dumb question, but does (or did) anyone say those mission names
like "Five One L"?

Dale

[Roger Balettie]

"Dale" > wrote:
> Probably a dumb question, but does (or did) anyone say those mission names
> like "Five One L"?

Not a dumb question... but, no. It has always been "Fifty One L".

Roger
--
Roger Balettie
former Flight Dynamics Officer
Space Shuttle Mission Control
http://www.balettie.com/

[Dale]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 13:31:56 GMT, "Roger Balettie" > wrote:

>"Dale" > wrote:
>> Probably a dumb question, but does (or did) anyone say those mission names
>> like "Five One L"?
>
>Not a dumb question... but, no. It has always been "Fifty One L".

Thanks.

Dale

[Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)]

"Herb Schaltegger" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> cndc > wrote:
>
> > Elizabeth
>
> Because it was scheduled for 1985, to be launched from KSC ("2" would
> have indicated VAFB - which was never used, btw) and was "L" in the
> alphabetical sequence when planned. Of course it was NOT the 51st
> mission manifested or launched.

To expand upon this a bit.

The original numbering system was sequential.

STS-1
STS-2
etc.

As things got shuffled around and flight orders changed and with Vandenberg
coming on-line (in theory), they decided to come up with a more detailed
numbering scheme.

So, STS-XYa

X= Program Year - (Fiscal Year of Launch (1))
Y=Launch Site 1=KSC 2=VAFB
a=Order manifested in that year.

So, STS -51L was the 12th flight (L) manifested in 1985 and was launched
from KSC.

After Challanger, it was deemed that this system was more confusing than
helpful and with no launches planned out of VAFB at that point, not very
useful. So they went back to the sequential order.

Of course since they had kept the sequential order also for some internal
stuff, you ended up with two "STS-26-STS-33" These were designated STS-XXR
(for relight) (Page 294 Jenkin's 3rd edition.)

Personally I've never seen Challanger's last flight (51-L) referred to as
STS-33 except in Jenkin's and a couple of other places. Everyone refers to
it as 51-L. So if you see STS-33 (i.e. w/o the R) it could mean either 51-L
or Discovery's post Challanger flight. Technically it would mean 51-L, but
I've seen it used to refer to Discover's. So that's a bit confusing.


(1) - Jenkin's claims X = Fiscal Year manifested. I believe others have
said it's the program year. i.e. 1994 would have been STS-14x-y for the
14th year of the program.


>
> --
> Herb Schaltegger, Esq.
> Chief Counsel, Human O-Ring Society
> "I was promised flying cars! Where are the flying cars?!"
> ~ Avery Brooks

[Brian Thorn]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 14:44:50 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
> wrote:

>(1) - Jenkin's claims X = Fiscal Year manifested. I believe others have
>said it's the program year. i.e. 1994 would have been STS-14x-y for the
>14th year of the program.

It's both Program and Fiscal. In other words, Program Year beginning
Oct 1, with Program Year 1 being Oct 1 1980 to Sep 30 1981. Hence
STS-9 (Nov 83) was also 41-A.

Brian

[cndc]

Thank you Greg. That answers my question.

Regards, Elizabeth

[Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)]

"Brian Thorn" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 14:44:50 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
> > wrote:
>
> >(1) - Jenkin's claims X = Fiscal Year manifested. I believe others have
> >said it's the program year. i.e. 1994 would have been STS-14x-y for the
> >14th year of the program.
>
> It's both Program and Fiscal. In other words, Program Year beginning
> Oct 1, with Program Year 1 being Oct 1 1980 to Sep 30 1981. Hence
> STS-9 (Nov 83) was also 41-A.

Well, Yes and No. :-)

It just happens to line up that way. But obviously come the 1990s something
would have give. Either reusing numbers or going with 1x for years in which
case program year makes more sense. :-)


>
> Brian