Author Topic: Shuttle Q&A Part 5  (Read 866169 times)

Offline NSF Webmaster

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 298
  • Almere, The Netherlands
    • NASASpaceFlight.com
  • Liked: 98
  • Likes Given: 10
Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« on: 06/12/2009 11:12 PM »


To keep everything at readable proportions, this is part 5 of the highly informative thread. Below are the links to previous parts. Please use the search function to see if your question has been answered before. Have Fun!

Shuttle Q&A Part 1
Shuttle Q&A Part 2
Shuttle Q&A Part 3
Shuttle Q&A Part 4
« Last Edit: 06/12/2009 11:13 PM by NSF Webmaster »

Offline NSF Webmaster

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 298
  • Almere, The Netherlands
    • NASASpaceFlight.com
  • Liked: 98
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #1 on: 06/12/2009 11:15 PM »
And to repeat the last post in Part 4 :

Banjul, also no longer used, is Yundum International Airport. NASA built a dedicated building at each of those locations.

STS-125 was told "negative Moron, select Banjul." Wouldn't that imply it's still used?
In a big emergency they might land there (edit -- probably only considered for low-inclination flights, which are now concluded), but the execute packages for 125 noted that Banjul was "politically not recommended."

Offline Spacenick

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #2 on: 06/13/2009 06:28 PM »
Is Groom Lake a possible landing location of the Space Shuttle?

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6179
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3 on: 06/13/2009 06:39 PM »
Is Groom Lake a possible landing location of the Space Shuttle?

In the sense of "the runway is big enough and is equipped with the proper navaids", yes.

In the sense of "would NASA ever land there", no. Groom Lake is not on the ELS list. There are other air force bases in that area of Nevada (e.g. Nellis) that are also suitable for the shuttle and aren't nearly as classified. There is no conceivable circumstance where the shuttle would be able to land at Groom Lake but not one of these other fields. Therefore it will never, ever happen.
JRF

Offline usn_skwerl

  • Space Junkie
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 218
  • Ad Astra
  • South Bend, IN
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #4 on: 06/13/2009 11:45 PM »
What are the tanks I've circled? Nitrogen or Helium? I assume they are gaseous tanks? What function do the contents serve? Thanks.
« Last Edit: 06/13/2009 11:51 PM by usn_skwerl »
If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3020
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 88
  • Likes Given: 208
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #5 on: 06/14/2009 12:25 AM »
Forgive me if I missed this elsewhere on the forum, but can someone point me to an explanation of the "beta angle cutout" and the thermal constraints that prevent launch of STS-127 after June 20?

Offline rdale

  • Assistant to the Chief Meteorologist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9892
  • Lansing MI
  • Liked: 236
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #6 on: 06/14/2009 12:31 AM »
If you Google and add " site:nasaspaceflight.com" it will restrict the searches to here, where it'll be easier to find.

http://www.google.com/search?q=beta+angle+cutout+site%3Anasaspaceflight.com&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=

has several discussions here that explain it in detail.

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3020
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 88
  • Likes Given: 208
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #7 on: 06/14/2009 12:35 AM »
Thanks, appreciate it!

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31294
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9578
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #8 on: 06/14/2009 03:16 AM »
What are the tanks I've circled? Nitrogen or Helium? I assume they are gaseous tanks? What function do the contents serve? Thanks.

high pressure storage for purges

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5192
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 342
  • Likes Given: 214
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #9 on: 06/14/2009 03:47 AM »
They're all helium, no?  The Air Liquide GN2 line is kept at 6-7 ksi.  No real need for a plenum.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline Zero-G

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 191
  • Switzerland
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #10 on: 06/14/2009 03:11 PM »
I have some questions about some aspects of the Space Shuttle's ascent procedures:

1. When had the OMS assist burn during ascent (on Direct Insertion) been introduced for the first time?
2. Which missions used the OMS assist burn during ascent? Is there a list available somewhere?
3. To me, it seems like all ISS missions used it, is that correct? What about other missions (e.g. Mir missions and others)? On the Ascent checklists that are available on the web, I noticed that the Hubble missions did not have an OMS assist burn, as well as STS-400.
4. What are the reasons that determine, if an OMS assist is needed during ascent? Is it only the ET reentry footprint on certain inclinations? Does it also depend on the total weight of the orbiter (incl. payload)? Other factors?

5. When had the Roll to Heads Up been introduced for the first time?
6. Which missions had performed the Roll to Heads Up? Is there a list available?
7. I have read that the reason for the introduction of Roll to Heads Up was, to establish the comm link with a TDRS satellite during ascent, which in turn made a tracking station on the Bermudas obsolete. So, I assume that after a certain point in the history of the Shuttle program all missions performed the Roll to Heads Up. Is this correct?
« Last Edit: 06/14/2009 03:19 PM by Zero-G »
"I still don't understand who I am: the first human or the last dog in space." - Yuri Gagarin

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6179
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #11 on: 06/14/2009 08:12 PM »
I have some questions about some aspects of the Space Shuttle's ascent procedures:

1. When had the OMS assist burn during ascent (on Direct Insertion) been introduced for the first time?

STS-90, 1998.

Quote
2. Which missions used the OMS assist burn during ascent? Is there a list available somewhere?

Don't know of a list. Most flights have used it.

Quote
3. To me, it seems like all ISS missions used it, is that correct? What about other missions (e.g. Mir missions and others)? On the Ascent checklists that are available on the web, I noticed that the Hubble missions did not have an OMS assist burn, as well as STS-400.

There was only one Mir mission after STS-90 (STS-91). Don't know if it used OMS assist but it probably did. HST missions do not use OMS assist because they need all their OMS prop for in-mission usage. Roughly speaking, they burn half the tanks getting up to HST and the other half for deorbit.

Quote
4. What are the reasons that determine, if an OMS assist is needed during ascent? Is it only the ET reentry footprint on certain inclinations? Does it also depend on the total weight of the orbiter (incl. payload)? Other factors?

Reentry footprint doesn't have anything to do with it. OMS assist is performed if 1) the OMS prop required for the mission itself does not require full tanks and 2) the mission could benefit from the additional payload capacity gained by filling the OMS tanks full and burning the difference as OMS assist (IIRC it's roughly 200 lb payload for 4000 lb OMS prop). CG location is a secondary consideration on the amount loaded.

Quote
5. When had the Roll to Heads Up been introduced for the first time?

Don't remember for sure, think it was STS-86. (If it wasn't, it was another flight that year, 1997).

Quote
6. Which missions had performed the Roll to Heads Up? Is there a list available?

No public list I'm aware of.

Quote
7. I have read that the reason for the introduction of Roll to Heads Up was, to establish the comm link with a TDRS satellite during ascent, which in turn made a tracking station on the Bermudas obsolete. So, I assume that after a certain point in the history of the Shuttle program all missions performed the Roll to Heads Up. Is this correct?

Think so. RTHU does cost some performance so there were a handful of performance critical missions, after introduction of RTHU but before closure of Bermuda, that did not perform it. Off the top of my head I think STS-97 and 98 didn't but I'm not sure.
JRF

Offline mkirk

  • International Man Of Mystery
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1729
  • Florida/Texas
  • Liked: 29
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #12 on: 06/14/2009 08:12 PM »
I have some questions about some aspects of the Space Shuttle's ascent procedures:

1. When had the OMS assist burn during ascent (on Direct Insertion) been introduced for the first time?
2. Which missions used the OMS assist burn during ascent? Is there a list available somewhere?
3. To me, it seems like all ISS missions used it, is that correct? What about other missions (e.g. Mir missions and others)? On the Ascent checklists that are available on the web, I noticed that the Hubble missions did not have an OMS assist burn, as well as STS-400.
4. What are the reasons that determine, if an OMS assist is needed during ascent? Is it only the ET reentry footprint on certain inclinations? Does it also depend on the total weight of the orbiter (incl. payload)? Other factors?

5. When had the Roll to Heads Up been introduced for the first time?
6. Which missions had performed the Roll to Heads Up? Is there a list available?
7. I have read that the reason for the introduction of Roll to Heads Up was, to establish the comm link with a TDRS satellite during ascent, which in turn made a tracking station on the Bermudas obsolete. So, I assume that after a certain point in the history of the Shuttle program all missions performed the Roll to Heads Up. Is this correct?

Roll to Heads up started with STS-87 and was standard after that.  It was initiated by the program because of the expected closing of Bermuda.

OMS Assist capability was implemented with the OI-26 software, I will have to check which flight did it first.  From a quick search it looks like it was STS-90 but I seem to remember being in the simulator with John Young (yes name dropping) the night before STS-92 because of cg concerns he had with the OMS assist and subsequent aborts - I thought that was the first flight but I will have to double check I just don't remember but wiki is saying STS-90. STS-90 might have tested the concept prior to an actual heavy station mission.

Mark Kirkman

P.S.

Yep, I checked my notes and it was indeed a test objective on STS-90 which was the neurolab flight and not a station mission.
« Last Edit: 06/14/2009 08:36 PM by mkirk »
Mark Kirkman

Offline Bladerunner

  • Member
  • Posts: 21
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #13 on: 06/15/2009 02:13 AM »
ok i dont understand. by "range" im assuming NASA means the entire sky right? maybe a certain radius of it anyway? since the sky is all open and just "there" I dont get what this conflict is about? so what if numerous ships have a launch schedule close together, launch one, say at 10am, then launch another at 1030am---so what?  why does the range only allow a certain vessel at a time to only launch at a certain period? the sky is the sky. Once something launches and clears, why cant another go right after it? even a day later, why is it still closed off?

Offline MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3901
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 472
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #14 on: 06/15/2009 02:43 AM »
ok i dont understand. by "range" im assuming NASA means the entire sky right? maybe a certain radius of it anyway? since the sky is all open and just "there" I dont get what this conflict is about? so what if numerous ships have a launch schedule close together, launch one, say at 10am, then launch another at 1030am---so what?  why does the range only allow a certain vessel at a time to only launch at a certain period? the sky is the sky. Once something launches and clears, why cant another go right after it? even a day later, why is it still closed off?

The antennas need to be reconfigured for the LVs trajectory heading. They don't cover the entire sky at once - they're directional dishes, not simple radio aerials.
« Last Edit: 06/15/2009 02:45 AM by MKremer »

Offline The-Hammer

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 410
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #15 on: 06/15/2009 03:24 AM »
ok i dont understand. by "range" im assuming NASA means the entire sky right?

The sky is only a tiny part of the "range".

Mostly when they say "the range" they are referring to the dishes that allow telemetry from the rockets to be fed to the mission control centers. The dishes also track the rocket's path through the sky to make certain it doesn't go off course and threaten civilian populations. They also allow the flight control officer to destruct the rocket if it does go off course.

And yes, the shuttle (specifically the SRBs) has a flight termination system.
Grant Imahara: Oxygen deficiency alarm? Is that something I should be worried about?
NASA worker: Only if it goes off.

Offline mkirk

  • International Man Of Mystery
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1729
  • Florida/Texas
  • Liked: 29
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #16 on: 06/15/2009 04:24 AM »
Sorry if I steped on Jorge's answers earlier but they weren't visible when I typed mine.

As for RTHU, after STS-87 I think ALL flights performed the roll because it was implemented based on the performance enhancement certifications. Flight Procedures Handbook states it is REQUIRED for low inclination flights for that reason alone.  FPH also states that roll costs about 35 lbs in performance.

I have the STS-97 checklist Jorge referred to in my files so I can look that up to confirm.

Mark Kirkman
Mark Kirkman

Offline Zero-G

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 191
  • Switzerland
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #17 on: 06/15/2009 05:12 AM »
Jorge and Mark,
Thanks a lot for your detailed answers!

I have a few more questions, just for clarification:

OMS Assist capability was implemented with the OI-26 software, I will have to check which flight did it first.  From a quick search it looks like it was STS-90 but I seem to remember being in the simulator with John Young (yes name dropping) the night before STS-92 because of cg concerns he had with the OMS assist and subsequent aborts - I thought that was the first flight but I will have to double check I just don't remember but wiki is saying STS-90. STS-90 might have tested the concept prior to an actual heavy station mission.

Mark Kirkman

P.S.

Yep, I checked my notes and it was indeed a test objective on STS-90 which was the neurolab flight and not a station mission.

Have there been any other tests after the first one on STS-90, or was this the only one?
After the test(s), what was the first mission that used OMS Assist?
Since then, which missions have used OMS assist (or which have not, apart from the HST missions)?
Would a LON mission to the ISS also use OMS assist, or would this not be necessary, as there would be no payload on board?
« Last Edit: 06/15/2009 11:42 AM by Zero-G »
"I still don't understand who I am: the first human or the last dog in space." - Yuri Gagarin

Offline oxford750

  • Member
  • Posts: 82
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #18 on: 06/15/2009 07:32 AM »
Hi folks:

I am using a Quote from Jorge near the bottom of page one.

"OMS assist is performed if 1) the OMS prop required for the mission itself does not require full tanks and 2) the mission could benefit from the additional payload capacity gained by filling the OMS tanks full and burning the difference as OMS assist (IIRC it's roughly 200 lb payload for 4000 lb OMS prop). CG location is a secondary consideration on the amount"

I thought OMS assist was used if payload was -TOO heavy-, otherwise it seems to me that it would be a waste of money too -just burn off- the OMS prop like that?

Sincerely
Oxford750 

Offline elmarko

  • I am very curious about THIS little conundrum
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1295
  • Preston, UK
    • ElMarko.org
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #19 on: 06/15/2009 09:34 AM »
I still don't really understand why they don't just not fill the amount of OMS that they'd burn off on the ascent anyway.

Am I missing something? Do the tanks HAVE to be full on launch?
« Last Edit: 06/15/2009 09:35 AM by elmarko »

Tags: