Talk:Extended Duration Orbiter

Mission duration (vs. STS-80)

In response to a question from Mark Carreau, did Wayne Hale say STS-120 was the longest duration mission to the ISS? (He mentioned non-ISS missions that had flown with an "Extended Duration Orbiter" pallet. Was STS-80 an example of those?) Even before landing has STS-120 already set a record for "longest duration of a shuttle docked to ISS"? (sdsds - talk) 18:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, let me pull out my excel spreadsheet that has the durations... STS-80 was 17 days, 15 hours, 53 minutes (landing delayed due to weather for 2 days), but yes, that was with the EDO config. STS-78 (EDO) was 16 days, 21 hours, 47 minutes. STS-67 (EDO) was 16 days, 15 hours, 9 minutes. STS-73 (EDO), STS-90 (EDO), (and STS-107 EDO? Unsure.) were all 15 days 20+ hours. All of those will be longer than STS-120, (assuming the first STS-120 landing is clear for weather, prelim reports look good). If the orbiter lands on schedule, MET will be 15 days, 2 hours, 24 minutes. If weather delays the landing, then it could possibly end up being the longest shuttle flight ever, EDO or not, but I really doubt that they'd need 2+ days to get a good landing op. So, I'd say yes, this is the longest non-EDO flight, but the SSPTS sort of does the same thing (more or less), allowing the orbiter to stay docked longer. As for longest docked mission, I'll have to go back through more carefully, but I'd guess yes, most docked ops last for 8-9 days, this one was just shy of 11 days. Ariel♥Gold 19:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STS-107 had the EDO pallet. anonymous6494 09:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I figured as much, thanks for the confirmation! Ariel♥Gold 15:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The extended duration orbiter pallet article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. ;-) (sdsds - talk) 07:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, Sdsds! Ariel♥Gold 11:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving/renaming from extended duration orbiter pallet

I have added a tad more to this article. I'm considering moving the page to "Extended Duration Orbiter" and merging the content into that article. EDO is the program of which the pallet was part. There were other things developed under that program name, like an EDO waste compactor and some other small things. As such I think it's handier to have a bit wider "EDO" article, rather then just a couple of stubs of which half might not even be worth mentioning. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I searched, and don't see a page for "Extended Duration Orbiter", or "Extended duration orbiter". Does the article not exist yet? Either way, sounds like a good idea to me, DJ! :) Ariel♥Gold 23:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Widening the scope of the extended duration orbiter pallet article to include more than just the pallet itself would be great! If the article were renamed extended duration orbiter, what would the first sentence say? That looks like a noun phrase, but it might not have really been one. Would extended duration orbiter missions work? Should this discussion really be at Talk:extended duration orbiter pallet? (sdsds - talk) 23:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We'd have to do some research into it to find out proper capitalization. Was it a program that was a proper noun, "Extended Duration Orbiter Program"? Was it just a term, that would not require capitalization of more than the first name, "Extended duration orbiter"? I recall reading about the upgrades back then, but off the top of my head without looking into it, I couldn't say if it should all be capitalized or not. Once decided, the current page, Extended duration orbiter pallet should be page-moved, to keep the history intact. Ariel♥Gold 23:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already moved it, but we can discuss it further there. As a matter of fact, i'm moving this discussion as well now. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks awesome, DJ, great job! And sorry if I caused you any edit conflicts just now, lol. Ariel♥Gold 01:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None whatsoever. what a miracle right ? I hope to add a bit more to it still, but it is a pretty good start i think. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the name: I have trouble figuring out how this program worked and was defined within NASA, so i'm a bit stuck on the name as it is. :( --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 02:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery

I have confirmation on Endeavour, Columbia and Atlantis EDO configuration updates, but not 100% sure on the Discovery upgrades. If someone can find that info, that would be great. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No orbiters in the fleet are EDO capable today. The first orbiter equipped was Endeavour, (OV-105), but the EDO was removed in 1996, as part of a weight reduction effort, prior to STS-89 during the orbiter's maintenance from July 30, 1996, through March 27, 1997. That refit included removing the RCRS, and adding LiOH canisters. Atlantis (OV-104) was modified to have the provisions needed for EDO capability during its modification, from October 17, 1992, through May 29, 1994, prior to STS-66, but NASA chose not to proceed with the final changes, and as a result, Atlantis is not EDO capable. Columbia was the last EDO capable orbiter. Discovery was never modified. (Sources: Jenkins, Dennis R. (2001). Space Shuttle: The History of the National Space Transportation System. Cape Canaveral, Fla. pp. Page 393, 437, 438. ISBN 0-9633974-5-1.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link), (verified, I own this book) and Seiferth, Rolf (September, 1973). Ablative Heat Shield Design for Space Shuttle, Final Report. Martin Marietta Corporation. pp. Page 2. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) )

The article will need to clarify this, as it currently says they are in use, which they aren't, that was the reason for the SSPTS basically, because none of the current orbiters have EDO capabilities. Other modifications did, of course, improve the margins, but not like the EDO pallet did. The article will need to say this in the introduction, explaining the history, and perhaps mentioning the SSPTS as an alternative system for when orbiters are docked to the ISS. Ariel♥Gold 02:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I edited the intro to give the above info, history, etc., and did some other general cleanup work. The Jenkins book (which is used in MCC as a ref, you can see it on the bookshelves on NASA TV during missions if you look) has additional info about the pallet that I'll add, as well. Ariel♥Gold 02:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool that you found that information. Very nice. I wonder how much of all this stuff is still in use. I suspect the WCS and the CO2 system as well as the extra storage space and the O2 tanks are still in use. I think only the Cryo facilities for the EDO pallet were actually removed and that Discovery doesn't have the extra O2 tanks. If you could figure that out, then it would be perfect. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 03:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting document from 1977 concerning EDO. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19790015495_1979015495.pdf It's too big for me to read now, and i need to get up in 4 hours, so it's about time i get to bed :D --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 04:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hrmm, yeah, I'm not sure about how much is still in use on Endeavour and Atlantis (if any on Atlantis). The Jenkins book only covers up to STS-107 or shortly before, so I'm unsure how to find out that other info. Ariel♥Gold 04:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What rate did the LH & LOX liquid boil off at

What rate did the EDO LH & LOX liquid boil off at ? or was it not significant (well insulated?). Did the Orbiter use on-board LH & LOX, before, after or in parallel with the EDO supplies ? - Rod57 (talk) 10:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]