|
Post by ka9q on Feb 20, 2012 11:58:59 GMT -4
The number-letter plan was adopted when it was thought there'd be shuttles flying from both coasts. Mission names would be of the firm STS-nc-A, where n was the last digit of the year in which the mission was originally supposed to fly, c was 1 for a KSC launch, 2 for a VAFB launch, and A was a serial letter within the year. So STS-51L, the ill fated Challenger flight, was originally supposed to launch from KSC in 1985 as the 12 mission of that year. It kept its designation when it slipped into 1986.
After Challenger the completed west coast launch site was mothballed as too dangerous, so NASA went back to the original numbering plan.
I really wonder...how many more Saturn IB's and V's could we have had for what the Shuttle cost us?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Feb 20, 2012 12:15:18 GMT -4
The number-letter plan was adopted when it was thought there'd be shuttles flying from both coasts. Mission names would be of the firm STS-nc-A, where n was the last digit of the year in which the mission was originally supposed to fly, c was 1 for a KSC launch, 2 for a VAFB launch, and A was a serial letter within the year. So STS-51L, the ill fated Challenger flight, was originally supposed to launch from KSC in 1985 as the 12 mission of that year. If that numbering system had continued, wouldn't it have lead to duplicates in the 1990s? For example, couldn't there have been another STS-51L in 1995? How did they plan on avoiding that? It seems to me that a sytem that used the last two digits of the year (STS-851L and STS-951L) would have made more sense.
|
|
|
Post by Glom on Feb 20, 2012 14:49:49 GMT -4
I think the first number was supposed to be the number of the financial year since programme start so 1990 would have seen 101-A for example. It was already very bean-countery.
It's a bit like the way Apollo 1 was supposed to be called Apollo 204 but that wasn't sexy enough for Grissom and his crew so they decided to informally call it Apollo 1. After the fire, NASA decided to adopt a less obtuse numbering system that made each mission seemed more glamorous leading to Apollo 501 being named Apollo 4. The three missions already flown would have been Apollos 1, 2 and 3, but because the widows campaigned to let Apollo 1 be the official name of Grissom's moribund flight, that happened and the first three were never officially renamed from their Apollo 201, 202 and 203 designations. Hence why there is no Apollo 2 or 3.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Feb 20, 2012 18:16:42 GMT -4
If that numbering system had continued, wouldn't it have lead to duplicates in the 1990s? For example, couldn't there have been another STS-51L in 1995? How did they plan on avoiding that? Per the Wikipedia article: "...the third flight in FY 1995 would have been named 151-C" Apparently, the plan was to go to 3 digits starting in 1990.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Feb 20, 2012 20:38:22 GMT -4
But the rest of AS-204 (i.e., the Saturn IB launch vehicle that would have launched Grissom's crew) did fly as Apollo 5, carrying the unmanned LM-1 to orbit for testing.
|
|
|
Post by Glom on Feb 21, 2012 3:04:39 GMT -4
But the rest of AS-204 (i.e., the Saturn IB launch vehicle that would have launched Grissom's crew) did fly as Apollo 5, carrying the unmanned LM-1 to orbit for testing. Which would have caused no end of confusion. Perhaps part of the reason for the change.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Feb 21, 2012 6:19:07 GMT -4
After the fire, NASA decided to adopt a less obtuse numbering system that made each mission seemed more glamorous leading to Apollo 501 being named Apollo 4. The three missions already flown would have been Apollos 1, 2 and 3, but because the widows campaigned to let Apollo 1 be the official name of Grissom's moribund flight, that happened and the first three were never officially renamed from their Apollo 201, 202 and 203 designations. Hence why there is no Apollo 2 or 3. Not quite right. The flown missions were never re-numbered. Apollo 2 and 3 were the missions cancelled after the Apollo 1 fire, for which crews had been assigned. NASA didn't really explain this, which is why there are various guesses about renumbered flown missions floating about.
|
|
|
Post by Glom on Feb 21, 2012 13:13:23 GMT -4
Every story I read on this is different.
|
|