Mission number vs launch order

Why is STS-121 out of numerical order, directly following STS-114,
with later missions to be designated STS-115, 116 etc.?

"Andy Williams" wrote in message
...
Why is STS-121 out of numerical order, directly following STS-114,
with later missions to be designated STS-115, 116 etc.?

Because mission numbers are assigned years in advance of the actual mission
and lots of stuff happens in between the the time a mission number is
assigned and the time the actual launch takes place.


JD

Andy Williams wrote in
:

Why is STS-121 out of numerical order, directly following STS-114,
with later missions to be designated STS-115, 116 etc.?

Flights are numbers in the order they are added to the manifest, not in the
order they fly. When STS-121 was added, STS-114 to 120 were already on the
manifest, so it got the next available number.

--
JRF

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

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 20:41:29 -0400, Andy Williams
wrote:

Why is STS-121 out of numerical order, directly following STS-114,
with later missions to be designated STS-115, 116 etc.?

Because STS-121 was added to the launch schedule after the Columbia
disaster. Rather than change all the paperwork for all the later
missions in which payloads, crew, experiments, supplies, etc. have
already been assigned (STS-115 becoming STS-116, etc.) NASA simply
altered the earliest flight number for which the paperwork changes
would be manageable. That was STS-121.

Previously, STS-114 had been a Space Station resupply and crew
exchange mission. When Return-to-Flight tasks had to be added to the
mission (specifically, testing tile repair technology) it was decided
to split STS-114 into two flights, with the crew exchange part of the
mission going to the new STS-121.

Brian

Brian Thorn wrote:

Andy Williams wrote:

Why is STS-121 out of numerical order, directly following STS-114,
with later missions to be designated STS-115, 116 etc.?

Because STS-121 was added to the launch schedule after the Columbia
disaster. Rather than change all the paperwork for all the later
missions in which payloads, crew, experiments, supplies, etc. have
already been assigned (STS-115 becoming STS-116, etc.) NASA simply
altered the earliest flight number for which the paperwork changes
would be manageable. That was STS-121.

Previously, STS-114 had been a Space Station resupply and crew
exchange mission. When Return-to-Flight tasks had to be added to the
mission (specifically, testing tile repair technology) it was decided
to split STS-114 into two flights, with the crew exchange part of the
mission going to the new STS-121.

Thanks, that clears it up.

Is there an online resource that lists mission objectives? I have
been googling, but have not found such a list.
--
Andy Williams
ADOM Guidebook: http://www.andywlms.com/adom/
Mirror: http://users.rcn.com/andy.williams/adom/

"Andy Williams" wrote in message
...
Brian Thorn wrote:

Andy Williams wrote:

Why is STS-121 out of numerical order, directly following STS-114,
with later missions to be designated STS-115, 116 etc.?

Because STS-121 was added to the launch schedule after the Columbia
disaster. Rather than change all the paperwork for all the later
missions in which payloads, crew, experiments, supplies, etc. have
already been assigned (STS-115 becoming STS-116, etc.) NASA simply
altered the earliest flight number for which the paperwork changes
would be manageable. That was STS-121.

Previously, STS-114 had been a Space Station resupply and crew
exchange mission. When Return-to-Flight tasks had to be added to the
mission (specifically, testing tile repair technology) it was decided
to split STS-114 into two flights, with the crew exchange part of the
mission going to the new STS-121.

Thanks, that clears it up.

Is there an online resource that lists mission objectives? I have
been googling, but have not found such a list.

Here is some information:

http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/shuttle/future/index.html

Ted Molczan

Joe Delphi wrote:

Because mission numbers are assigned years in advance of the actual
mission and lots of stuff happens in between the the time a mission
number is assigned and the time the actual launch takes place.

Which makes me wonder: is there a list somewhere of shuttle missions, where
the value n in STS-n actually *was* the n'th shuttle mission (eg. STS-1,
STS-26 and STS-100)?

/steen

"Steen" wrote in message
. ..
Joe Delphi wrote:

Because mission numbers are assigned years in advance of the actual
mission and lots of stuff happens in between the the time a mission
number is assigned and the time the actual launch takes place.

Which makes me wonder: is there a list somewhere of shuttle missions,
where
the value n in STS-n actually *was* the n'th shuttle mission (eg. STS-1,
STS-26 and STS-100)?

Yes, though I can't recall where.

The earliest ones were pretty much 1-1.

Then the whole STS-xyA scheme came along.




/steen

"Steen" wrote:

Joe Delphi wrote:

Because mission numbers are assigned years in advance of the actual
mission and lots of stuff happens in between the the time a mission
number is assigned and the time the actual launch takes place.

Which makes me wonder: is there a list somewhere of shuttle missions, where the value n in STS-n
actually *was* the n'th shuttle mission (eg. STS-1, STS-26 and STS-100)?

STS 1-9
26-27
44
55
58
60
64
66
70
75-84
89-91
114

--

Brian Lawrence

Wantage, Oxfordshire, UK

"Steen" wrote in
:

Joe Delphi wrote:

Because mission numbers are assigned years in advance of the actual
mission and lots of stuff happens in between the the time a mission
number is assigned and the time the actual launch takes place.

Which makes me wonder: is there a list somewhere of shuttle missions,
where the value n in STS-n actually *was* the n'th shuttle mission
(eg. STS-1, STS-26 and STS-100)?

Don't recall a concise list, but the two longest streaks were 1-9 and 75-
84.


--
JRF

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