Launch Complex 39 Q&A

Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 26 Next
Author Topic: Launch Complex 39 Q&A  (Read 79872 times)
Jim
Night Gator
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 17590
Location: Cape Canaveral Spaceport



« Reply #330 on: 03/09/2012 01:29 PM »

They are for the SRB exhaust, they are moved into place after the crawler leaves.
Actually, they're moved into launch position as part of S0007.100 Launch Countdown pre-ops.

Which is after the crawler leaves
DaveS
Shuttle program observer
Full Member
*****
Online

Posts: 6834
Location: Sweden


« Reply #331 on: 03/09/2012 01:41 PM »

They are for the SRB exhaust, they are moved into place after the crawler leaves.
Actually, they're moved into launch position as part of S0007.100 Launch Countdown pre-ops.

Which is after the crawler leaves
Which in turn is a long time after the crawler leaves which is after the MLP with the stack is harddown on the mounts at the pad.
AnalogMan
Member
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 2042
Location: Cambridge, UK


« Reply #332 on: 03/09/2012 01:58 PM »

I see, didn't know they were on rails..
I guess it would be to allow some free space for the crawler ?

You can see from the attached drawing how the side flame deflectors sit in the same space that the crawler needs to occupy when it moves the MLP over the flame trench.

(click image to enlarge)
cyril_13
Full Member
***
Offline

Posts: 68


« Reply #333 on: 03/09/2012 02:07 PM »

Great drawing, thanks!
Looks like some official drawing...
Mark Dave
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 1109

Ruined


« Reply #334 on: 03/11/2012 09:03 PM »

Why was the vent pipes that attach to the "beanie cap" shortened? I mean if you compare photos of STS-1 to STS-2, you can see the difference.

STS-1 http://www.capcomespace.net/dossiers/espace_US/shuttle/1981-85/1981%20STS1%20FRF%2001.jpg

STs-2 http://www.spacefacts.de/graph/drawing/drawings2/sts-2_pad.jpg

DaveS
Shuttle program observer
Full Member
*****
Online

Posts: 6834
Location: Sweden


« Reply #335 on: 03/11/2012 09:37 PM »

Why was the vent pipes that attach to the "beanie cap" shortened? I mean if you compare photos of STS-1 to STS-2, you can see the difference.

STS-1 http://www.capcomespace.net/dossiers/espace_US/shuttle/1981-85/1981%20STS1%20FRF%2001.jpg

STs-2 http://www.spacefacts.de/graph/drawing/drawings2/sts-2_pad.jpg


Due to problems with the dock seals in the GOX Vent Hood during the pad flow of STS-1 that was partially caused by underdimensioned vent pipes, the system was redesigned during the down time between STS-1 and STS-2. That redesign resulted in the shorter but larger vent pipes used today.

Read more about the problems with the GOX Vent System during the STS-1 pad flow in this document: Space Shuttle External Tank Gaseous Oxygen Vent System
cyril_13
Full Member
***
Offline

Posts: 68


« Reply #336 on: 03/12/2012 08:20 AM »

Why was the vent pipes that attach to the "beanie cap" shortened? I mean if you compare photos of STS-1 to STS-2, you can see the difference.

STS-1 http://www.capcomespace.net/dossiers/espace_US/shuttle/1981-85/1981%20STS1%20FRF%2001.jpg

STs-2 http://www.spacefacts.de/graph/drawing/drawings2/sts-2_pad.jpg

What is the "beanie cap" ?
DaveS
Shuttle program observer
Full Member
*****
Online

Posts: 6834
Location: Sweden


« Reply #337 on: 03/12/2012 08:29 AM »

Why was the vent pipes that attach to the "beanie cap" shortened? I mean if you compare photos of STS-1 to STS-2, you can see the difference.

STS-1 http://www.capcomespace.net/dossiers/espace_US/shuttle/1981-85/1981%20STS1%20FRF%2001.jpg

STs-2 http://www.spacefacts.de/graph/drawing/drawings2/sts-2_pad.jpg

What is the "beanie cap" ?
It's real name is the Gaseous Oxygen Vent Hood or GOX Vent Hood. It is the large white hood that you see lowered over the nose of the External Tank.
wolfpack
Full Member
****
Offline

Posts: 429
Location: Wake Forest, NC


« Reply #338 on: 03/12/2012 06:17 PM »

Why was the vent pipes that attach to the "beanie cap" shortened? I mean if you compare photos of STS-1 to STS-2, you can see the difference.

STS-1 http://www.capcomespace.net/dossiers/espace_US/shuttle/1981-85/1981%20STS1%20FRF%2001.jpg

STs-2 http://www.spacefacts.de/graph/drawing/drawings2/sts-2_pad.jpg



They had lots of problems with that early on. IIRC, the O2 vent gave it a pretty hard kick when the valve opened in the ET, and it would blow the bags off the ET nosecap and start leaking. Shorter (and wider) pipes = less backpressure.
JayP
Member
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 787


« Reply #339 on: 03/14/2012 03:03 AM »

Believe it was a wheel of some sort that ejected the metal radially outwards into the area below the nozzles.

You're saying a mechanical device, like the wheel on top of a butane lighter? That's not how I understand it to work. I'd love to see a good closeup photo of that part of the TSM.

Here you go. I'm not sure if the pipe leading from the back of the unit to the wall of the TSM is a pressurized line to help ejecting the pelets or just a conduit for the wire carying the ignition circuit.
CitabriaFlyer
Full Member
****
Offline

Posts: 264


« Reply #340 on: 03/23/2012 01:26 AM »

I note that KTTS (the shuttle landing facility) requires prior permission to land.  I would think there would be a lot of general aviation applications for that facility.  I would love to have a chance to land my Citabria on it.  Any intel on the possibilities of general aviation utilization of the shuttle landing facility?
Jim
Night Gator
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 17590
Location: Cape Canaveral Spaceport



« Reply #341 on: 03/23/2012 01:30 AM »

I note that KTTS (the shuttle landing facility) requires prior permission to land.  I would think there would be a lot of general aviation applications for that facility.  I would love to have a chance to land my Citabria on it.  Any intel on the possibilities of general aviation utilization of the shuttle landing facility?

No, it would cause security issues
wolfpack
Full Member
****
Offline

Posts: 429
Location: Wake Forest, NC


« Reply #342 on: 04/02/2012 02:01 PM »

I note that KTTS (the shuttle landing facility) requires prior permission to land.  I would think there would be a lot of general aviation applications for that facility.  I would love to have a chance to land my Citabria on it.  Any intel on the possibilities of general aviation utilization of the shuttle landing facility?

No, it would cause security issues

I remember reading you could do it WAY, WAY back in the 70's.
jeff122670
Missing the Shuttle.. :(
Full Member
****
Offline

Posts: 300
Location: Arlington, VA


« Reply #343 on: 04/02/2012 06:19 PM »

if you slow a launch video down, you can see a large flame light off from the ROFI before the sparks start....lends credibility to the fireworks style fountains that we all know....

wow, i would love to set a ROFI off this 4th of july...

Believe it was a wheel of some sort that ejected the metal radially outwards into the area below the nozzles.

You're saying a mechanical device, like the wheel on top of a butane lighter? That's not how I understand it to work. I'd love to see a good closeup photo of that part of the TSM.

Here you go. I'm not sure if the pipe leading from the back of the unit to the wall of the TSM is a pressurized line to help ejecting the pelets or just a conduit for the wire carying the ignition circuit.
roma847
Full Member
****
Online

Posts: 250
Location: Germany


Be part of it


« Reply #344 on: 04/03/2012 09:02 AM »

Hi guys,

does anybody know the exact diameters of the LOX and LH2 pipes to the MLP-2 Sides 1, 2 and 4?

I need it for scratch buildung a 1:160 model of MLP-2.

Thanks
Tags:
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 26 Next
 

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 2.0 Beta 3.1 Public | SMF © 2006–2008, Simple Machines LLC
All content © 2005-2011 NASASpaceFlight.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.149 seconds with 22 queries.