Author Topic: Discovery: Deservicing and Retirement Updates (Read 332220 times)

Namechange User · « **Reply #20 on:** 03/15/2011 03:30 pm »

I don't know if it has "officially" been handed over to anyone or not.

Jim · « **Reply #21 on:** 03/15/2011 03:31 pm »

Who says it is for X-37?

Namechange User · « **Reply #22 on:** 03/15/2011 03:32 pm »

Quote from: Jim on 03/15/2011 03:31 pm

Who says it is for X-37?

It's a rumor. Obviously not confirmed.

Jim · « **Reply #23 on:** 03/15/2011 04:03 pm »

Quote from: OV-106 on 03/15/2011 03:32 pm

Quote from: Jim on 03/15/2011 03:31 pm
Who says it is for X-37?

It's a rumor. Obviously not confirmed.

I believe the rumor was for Boeing. It could be for CST-100

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #24 on:** 03/15/2011 04:07 pm »

Quote from: Jim on 03/15/2011 03:31 pm

Who says it is for X-37?

Oh Jim. And I thought you read my articles

As stated, that is the current rumor (multiple mentions). Nothing about CST-100, but I'll keep an eye on it.

steve_slitheen · « **Reply #25 on:** 03/15/2011 05:57 pm »

When the FRCS and OMS pods are removed for safing, will they simply be made safe (tanks emptied etc) or will they be stripped out before being remounted on the orbiter?

Namechange User · « **Reply #26 on:** 03/15/2011 06:01 pm »

Quote from: steve_slitheen on 03/15/2011 05:57 pm

When the FRCS and OMS pods are removed for safing, will they simply be made safe (tanks emptied etc) or will they be stripped out before being remounted on the orbiter?

Essentially stripped.

Skylon · « **Reply #27 on:** 03/15/2011 06:28 pm »

Quote from: astrobrian on 03/15/2011 03:26 pm

I was under the impression OPF-3 has already been handed over to the X-37 program.

That's somewhat ironic if OPF-3's fate is servicing a USAF winged spacecraft. As I understand it, OPF-3 was furnished using equipment slated for servicing an orbiter at SLC-6 out at Vandenberg.

chksix · « **Reply #28 on:** 03/16/2011 07:27 am »

If they decide on displaying her in a "dynamic" pose I'd vote for hanging her inverted (at a slight angle) from the ET attach points with open PBD's, some payloads in the bay and a simulated EVA by a suspended EMU to show scale. The SRM and OBSS could be outstretched showing how it scanned the chin area for example.

The gangways could pass close to the vehicle but not allow touching.

Showing her in a OPF style of display would be less impressive IMO.

MarsMethanogen · « **Reply #29 on:** 03/16/2011 12:43 pm »

Quote from: chksix on 03/16/2011 07:27 am

If they decide on displaying her in a "dynamic" pose I'd vote for hanging her inverted (at a slight angle) from the ET attach points with open PBD's, some payloads in the bay and a simulated EVA by a suspended EMU to show scale. The SRM and OBSS could be outstretched showing how it scanned the chin area for example.

The gangways could pass close to the vehicle but not allow touching.

Showing her in a OPF style of display would be less impressive IMO.

I may be totally out to lunch here, but I don't think that's practicable from an engineering standpoint. In a 1G environment, if the PBD's are open, aren't the strongbacks required? And since the OBSS and SRMS are not meant to be operated (or out of their mounting positions) in a 1G environment, wouldn't some additional bracing be required to have them extended in a mock operational position? And I would think that this would visibly detract from the effort to depict them in an "operational" position.

Lurker Steve · « **Reply #30 on:** 03/16/2011 01:10 pm »

I know they want to replace the SSME's with just some replica end-cones, so they can re-use the engines for SDLV development, but I would rather have at least 1 SSME end up in a display right next to the shuttle.

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #31 on:** 03/16/2011 01:23 pm »

Quote from: Lurker Steve on 03/16/2011 01:10 pm

I know they want to replace the SSME's with just some replica end-cones, so they can re-use the engines for SDLV development, but I would rather have at least 1 SSME end up in a display right next to the shuttle.

There might be one spare, one which isn't servicable maybe. I'll ask.

kermit · « **Reply #32 on:** 03/16/2011 01:40 pm »

Quote from: Lurker Steve on 03/16/2011 01:10 pm

I know they want to replace the SSME's with just some replica end-cones, so they can re-use the engines for SDLV development, but I would rather have at least 1 SSME end up in a display right next to the shuttle.

They have one right beside the Enterprise now.

astrobrian · « **Reply #33 on:** 03/16/2011 02:19 pm »

Just my two cents, but nothing that goes to NASM should have "replicated" anything be it Shuttle or otherwise, put 'em in there with all their parts as they flew, not as a Frankensteined version of its former glory.

nathan.moeller · « **Reply #34 on:** 03/16/2011 02:54 pm »

Quote from: astrobrian on 03/16/2011 02:19 pm

Just my two cents, but nothing that goes to NASM should have "replicated" anything be it Shuttle or otherwise, put 'em in there with all their parts as they flew, not as a Frankensteined version of its former glory.

As much as I agree, the problem is the fact that the SSME stock might be used on the next generation vehicle. It's good for them to have as many on hand as possible when they start the process. But yes, I'd love to have all the SSMEs go with the orbiters as well. Maybe you and I can sneak a few from Stennis over to Houston if/when an orbiter shows up there and do a little Max-Q style R&R on her

Lee Jay · « **Reply #35 on:** 03/16/2011 03:06 pm »

Quote from: astrobrian on 03/16/2011 02:19 pm

Just my two cents, but nothing that goes to NASM should have "replicated" anything be it Shuttle or otherwise, put 'em in there with all their parts as they flew, not as a Frankensteined version of its former glory.

But these are proposed to be actual nozzles, just ones that have been previously decommissioned for one reason or another, not cardboard replicas. I'm personally just fine with that, especially if there's a full SSME nearby to view from all angles in its full glory. The "guts" of the engine aren't visible anyway when mounted in the orbiter.

chksix · « **Reply #36 on:** 03/16/2011 03:16 pm »

Quote from: MarsMethanogen on 03/16/2011 12:43 pm

Quote from: chksix on 03/16/2011 07:27 am
If they decide on displaying her in a "dynamic" pose I'd vote for hanging her inverted (at a slight angle) from the ET attach points with open PBD's, some payloads in the bay and a simulated EVA by a suspended EMU to show scale. The SRM and OBSS could be outstretched showing how it scanned the chin area for example.

The gangways could pass close to the vehicle but not allow touching.

Showing her in a OPF style of display would be less impressive IMO.

I may be totally out to lunch here, but I don't think that's practicable from an engineering standpoint. In a 1G environment, if the PBD's are open, aren't the strongbacks required? And since the OBSS and SRMS are not meant to be operated (or out of their mounting positions) in a 1G environment, wouldn't some additional bracing be required to have them extended in a mock operational position? And I would think that this would visibly detract from the effort to depict them in an "operational" position.

I was thinking of having them braced and supported since they can't move under 1 g. The braces have to be accepted. Might be enough to use thin wires from the ceiling. The PBD strongbacks will be hidden and can withstand the force of the straps used.

Also, I hope they won't cut holes in the orbiter for public access.

brettreds2k · « **Reply #37 on:** 03/16/2011 03:23 pm »

I agree, any holes cut in her to allow the public to view/walk through would be a disgrace IMO. I personally would love to see Discovery just as Enterprise is displayed, so people can just see her with her stance in all her glory

JayP · « **Reply #38 on:** 03/16/2011 06:42 pm »

If i had to design the display, I would have the starboard PLBD open and have an elevated walk way that bridged over the right wing all the way along the length of the vehicle. I would put it about 6' to 8' from the payload bay sill. It would probably need a shield to prevent people from throwing stuff into the bay or onto the wings (although, the possibilty to do that exists with other aircraft in Udvar-Hazy, mayby they can just station a worker there to monitor the situation). The payload bay could be lit from above the walkway and contain and display the ODS, SRMS, OBSS, and maybe a simple payload structure like a GAS bridge. The port side door would be closed and viewing of that side would be from ground level.

The walkwaywould give people room to spread out and still see something interesting they wouldnt see otherwise. It could extend aft far enough that they could see the SSMEs, starboard OMS and RCS motors and the dragchute compartment (leave the door off and have the chute hung from the ceiling behind it if there is space). forward, it could extend to the nose, people could look thru windows 5 and 6 into the flight deck (wich would be internally lit) and down on the FRCS.

The nose gear would probably have to put on a stand to level the orbiter out. if the starboard door needed extra support, it could be integrated with the walkway structure.

Edits. I can't spell

Jason1701 · « **Reply #39 on:** 03/16/2011 06:45 pm »

Quote from: JayP on 03/16/2011 06:42 pm

If i had to design the display, I would have the starboard PLBD open and have an elevated walk way that bridged over the right wing all the way along the length of the vehicle. I would put it about 6' to 8' from the payload bay sill. It would probably need a shield to prevent people from throwing stuff into the bay or onto the wings (although, the possibilty to do that exists with other aircraft in Udhardzy, mayby they can just station a worker there to monitor the situation). The payload bay could be lit from above the walkway and contain and display the ODS, SRMS, OBSS, and maybe a simple payload structure like a GAS bridge. The port side door would be closed and viewing of that side would be from ground level.

The walkwaywould give people room to spread out and still see something interesting they wouldnt see otherwise. It could extend aft far enough that they could see the SSMEs, starboard OMS and RCS motors and the dragchute compartment (leave the door off and have the chute hung from the ceiling behind it if there is space). forward, it could extend to the nose, people colud look thru windows 5 and 6 into the flight deck (wich would be internally lit) and down on the FRCS.

The nose gear would probably have to put on a stand to level the orbiter out. if the starboard door needed extra support, it could be integrated with the walkway structure.

I like the walkway idea. Udvar-Hazy already has a walkway around the borders of the room Enterprise is in, so they could just add to that network in the center of the room.