Author Topic: Shuttle Q&A Part 5  (Read 876989 times)

Offline eric z

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 247
  • Liked: 122
  • Likes Given: 324
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3460 on: 08/26/2017 12:58 PM »
 Hi Dosobo, Welcome and have fun here! You ask a great question...sometimes we can get so lost in the trees, we don't see the forest, or vice-versa! There are many reasons we are where we are today, and you are about to be flooded with a lot of well-informed opinions, and maybe even some not-so well informed. Let's see what you think a few pages into this thread after getting hopefully thoughtful and diverse views. Keep an open mind, I've certainly had my eyes opened here, and have changed my mind on some things, but also have renewed strength in other things I believe in. Also, if you can, and maybe you already have, join L2 for even more extensive FUN!  8)

Offline Weasel Pilot

  • Member
  • Posts: 10
  • Charleston, SC
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3461 on: 09/15/2017 10:38 PM »
Both the LOX tank and the LH2 tank had four sensors at the 100% level - a low sensor, two (assumedly) median sensors and a high sensor (plus other sensors at the 98% and overfill levels). Does anybody know how much space there was between the 100% low sensor and the 100% high sensor?  In other words how much vertical space did 1% of propellant take up in the tank?  Obviously due to the tank shapes this would vary with location in the tank, but at the top (100% level) does anyone know what this was?

Dave

Offline brickmack

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 278
  • USA
  • Liked: 81
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3462 on: 09/15/2017 11:23 PM »
6 inches for the LOX tank, 8 for the LH2 tank

Offline Weasel Pilot

  • Member
  • Posts: 10
  • Charleston, SC
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3463 on: 09/20/2017 12:16 AM »
Thanks! Awesome response!!

Offline Weasel Pilot

  • Member
  • Posts: 10
  • Charleston, SC
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3464 on: 09/20/2017 05:58 PM »
Which begets another question...or actually five -
1. The tank fill schedule (as I understand it) was low flow to 2% then high flow (5,000 gal/min) til 98% then low flow again to 100%
      a. What was the low flow rate?
      b. How do it know?  No 2% sensor...
2. The feed lines openings were offset (as I measure it, 10 degrees for LOX and 6 degrees for LH2). 
      a. I ASSUME that this was to make up for gravity effect, si or no?
      b. Why are these not the same? (density delta twix LO2 & LH2?)
      c. Was the offset towards or away from the orbiter?

Dave

Offline mkirk

  • International Man Of Mystery
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1729
  • Florida/Texas
  • Liked: 29
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3465 on: 09/20/2017 06:52 PM »
Which begets another question...or actually five -
1. The tank fill schedule (as I understand it) was low flow to 2% then high flow (5,000 gal/min) til 98% then low flow again to 100%
      a. What was the low flow rate?
      b. How do it know?  No 2% sensor...
Dave


There is a lot packed into those questions, so let me take the first one since I can answer that pretty quickly and easily.  If someone else doesn't beat me to it, I will try and come back with a good answer to the second question later.

Slow Fill for LO2 to 2% level was based on time (about 11 minutes) at a flow rate of about 270 gallons per minute.
Fast Fill for LO2 to 98% level sensor was at around 1300+ gallons per minute.
LO2 Topping occurred at approximately 800 gallons per minute.
LO2 Replenish was in the neighborhood of 100 gallons per minute.

The launch vehicle was "designed to accept" 5000 gallons of LO2 per minute.  This was from a DOD requirement for so called "rapid response" launching of the shuttle.  However, the facility at KSC was only capable of delivering about 1400 gpm.

Slow Fill for LH2 to 5% occurred at a flow rate of 1200 gallons per minute until the 5% sensor was wet.
Fast Fill commenced at around 6900 gallons per minute until about the 85% level, then switched to "Reduce Fast Fill" until the 98% sensors were wet.
LH2 Topping to the 100% sensor occurred at about 600 gallons per minute.
LH2 Replenish was approximately 200 gallons per minute.

Mark Kirkman
Space Shuttle Hugger and NASA Geek
« Last Edit: 09/20/2017 07:21 PM by mkirk »
Mark Kirkman

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31353
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9630
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3466 on: 09/20/2017 07:58 PM »

2. The feed lines openings were offset (as I measure it, 10 degrees for LOX and 6 degrees for LH2). 
      a. I ASSUME that this was to make up for gravity effect, si or no?
      b. Why are these not the same? (density delta twix LO2 & LH2?)
      c. Was the offset towards or away from the orbiter?

Dave

No, they were offset due to orbiter hanging off the side of the ET and creating an offset CG and hence, the centerline of thrust was not parallel to the centerline of the ET

Towards the orbiter

Offline Weasel Pilot

  • Member
  • Posts: 10
  • Charleston, SC
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3467 on: 09/21/2017 08:01 PM »
Thanks again!  Excellent response/info.

I'm trying to get my (very) limited grey matter wrapped around the offset CG thing - I realize why the CG was offset, but did the offset cause/require a pitch that in turn caused the feed ports to be "canted"?

Online wolfpack

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 669
  • Wake Forest, NC
  • Liked: 88
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3468 on: 09/21/2017 08:16 PM »
Thanks again!  Excellent response/info.

I'm trying to get my (very) limited grey matter wrapped around the offset CG thing - I realize why the CG was offset, but did the offset cause/require a pitch that in turn caused the feed ports to be "canted"?

Thrust (acceleration) vector. It's not "straight up" through the ET.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31353
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9630
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3469 on: 09/22/2017 01:22 PM »
Thanks again!  Excellent response/info.

I'm trying to get my (very) limited grey matter wrapped around the offset CG thing - I realize why the CG was offset, but did the offset cause/require a pitch that in turn caused the feed ports to be "canted"?

If the thrust vector does not go through the CG, then there is a moment and the vehicle rotates. 
« Last Edit: 09/22/2017 01:32 PM by Jim »

Online DaveS

  • Shuttle program observer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7777
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 302
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3470 on: 09/28/2017 03:21 AM »
For the first few shuttle flights, the CDR executed a +Y translation following the normal +Z translation away from the ET. My question is, when did the +Y translation morph into the +X translation maneuver we’re familiar with?
"For Sardines, space is no problem!"
-1996 Astronaut class slogan

"We're rolling in the wrong direction but for the right reasons"
-USA engineer about the rollback of Discovery prior to the STS-114 Return To Flight mission

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2083
  • Liked: 220
  • Likes Given: 595
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3471 on: 09/30/2017 03:21 PM »
Why didn't the shuttle external tank have LOX/LH2 common bulkhead - unlike Saturn S-II ? they were of similar sizes and volumes.
I thought it could have made the E.T lighter, helping the shuttle performance a little ? by 1979 the Air Force was considering strapping Titan engines or solid rocket motors to improve performance.

Could a common bulkhead external tank have been fitted to shuttles as an upgrade ?

Online Welsh Dragon

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 207
  • Liked: 208
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3472 on: 09/30/2017 04:58 PM »
SRB thrust beam needed to go between the tanks, didn't it? Guess you could have made a circumferential thrust ring of some description, but that would probably wipe out the weight saving of the common bulkhead.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31353
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9630
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3473 on: 09/30/2017 11:03 PM »
Why didn't the shuttle external tank have LOX/LH2 common bulkhead - unlike Saturn S-II ? they were of similar sizes and volumes.
I thought it could have made the E.T lighter, helping the shuttle performance a little ? by 1979 the Air Force was considering strapping Titan engines or solid rocket motors to improve performance.

Could a common bulkhead external tank have been fitted to shuttles as an upgrade ?

Those were NASA studies

Offline penguin44

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 60
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 23
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3474 on: 10/01/2017 07:45 AM »
Recently was looking at old mission pictures and the images of Challenger post landing and actually in the preflare on 61a gave me a start! The browned burn from nose cap up to the cabin window was striking. I've never seen the shuttle look like that in that area. Was is a different reentry plan? High inclined orbit?
My other question was regarding I believe sts 8 or maybe 9. I read that there was tile slumping. I don't know what that is and what would cause it?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31353
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9630
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3475 on: 10/02/2017 12:26 AM »
Recently was looking at old mission pictures and the images of Challenger post landing and actually in the preflare on 61a gave me a start! The browned burn from nose cap up to the cabin window was striking. I've never seen the shuttle look like that in that area. Was is a different reentry plan? High inclined orbit?


No, just waterproofing material burning off.  no different entry


My other question was regarding I believe sts 8 or maybe 9. I read that there was tile slumping. I don't know what that is and what would cause it?

I believe it was in the elevon area.  Slumping is melting.

Online DaveS

  • Shuttle program observer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7777
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 302
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3476 on: 10/02/2017 01:06 AM »
Recently was looking at old mission pictures and the images of Challenger post landing and actually in the preflare on 61a gave me a start! The browned burn from nose cap up to the cabin window was striking. I've never seen the shuttle look like that in that area. Was is a different reentry plan? High inclined orbit?


No, just waterproofing material burning off.  no different entry

Yes. What they used pre-Challenger was stock 3M ScotchGuard that was sprayed directly onto the orbiter. It was later found that the ScotchGuard wasn’t working too well with the adhesive used to bond the tiles to the orbiter. This caused alot tiles to debond and was what was really behind the “TPS issues” with Challenger that forced her substitution with Discovery for STS-51C. In fact the problems were so severe that they removed Challenger’s original body flap and used the one intended for Atlantis. The body flaps were never changed back prior to the loss of Challenger so even to this day, Atlantis still have the refurbished body flap from Challenger.
"For Sardines, space is no problem!"
-1996 Astronaut class slogan

"We're rolling in the wrong direction but for the right reasons"
-USA engineer about the rollback of Discovery prior to the STS-114 Return To Flight mission

Offline penguin44

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 60
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 23
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3477 on: 10/02/2017 07:20 AM »
Great, thanks for the quick response gang! I knew someone here had the answer. I love this site.

Offline brickmack

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 278
  • USA
  • Liked: 81
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3478 on: 10/02/2017 04:03 PM »
Neat. Was there any other major hardware from Challenger/Columbia that made it to the end of the program? I seem to recall something about a custom payload mounting structure actually being recovered from Columbia's debris and studied for use on a later mission, don't think it happened though

Offline Fequalsma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 356
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3479 on: 10/03/2017 12:39 AM »
Here is a link to an AIAA paper on the Orbiter TPS:  https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2011-7308
that Wayne Hale also mentioned in his L2 post:  https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29231.msg1611589#msg1611589

Yes. What they used pre-Challenger was stock 3M ScotchGuard that was sprayed directly onto the orbiter. It was later found that the ScotchGuard wasn’t working too well with the adhesive used to bond the tiles to the orbiter. This caused alot tiles to debond and was what was really behind the “TPS issues” with Challenger that forced her substitution with Discovery for STS-51C. In fact the problems were so severe that they removed Challenger’s original body flap and used the one intended for Atlantis. The body flaps were never changed back prior to the loss of Challenger so even to this day, Atlantis still have the refurbished body flap from Challenger.

Tags: