(Explorer8939) wrote in
om:

I am presuming that NASA would attempt to autoland a damaged Shuttle
rather than ditching it in the ocean (assuming that an automatic
system to lower the nose gear is in place).

With the latter assumption (and it's *all* the landing gear, not just the
nose gear), yes. However, that will not be in place for RTF, and may not
get funded at all. The current plan is destructive re-entry over the ocean;
the orbiter would perform the deorbit burn using the OPS-2 orbit software,
then maneuver to point the open payload bay doors at the velocity vector.

Also, concerning Shuttle consumables, isn't there a system in
development to allow Shuttle to receive power from ISS?

Yes. That will not necessarily help the safe-haven duration, especially in
cases where the shuttle is crippled due to life-support or thermal control
system failures. And as far as I know, it will only work through PMA-2.

Lastly, why couldn't a damaged Shuttle move to PMA-2 at Node 1 to
allow a 2nd Shuttle to dock with PMA-3 at the Lab?

You have the PMAs reversed. PMA-2 is on the lab and PMA-3 is on Node 1. A
shuttle cannot dock to PMA-3 in its current location (Node 1 portside CBM)
due to collision with the P1 radiator and inadequate clearance with the Ku
antenna. A shuttle could dock to PMA-3 if it were relocated to Node 1 nadir
with nose-portside clocking, but only if the payload bay were emptied first
(clearance with Quest) and no Soyuz is docked to FGB nadir. RCS plume
impingement during such an approach will be quite high due to proximity of
sensitive station structures, and damage to the station is a strong
possibility.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.