Author Topic: Shuttle Q&A Part 5  (Read 1047082 times)

Offline wolfpack

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 695
  • Wake Forest, NC
  • Liked: 112
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3500 on: 03/09/2018 03:20 PM »
Contingency abort planning only required local emergency crews to establish a minimum 2,500' perimeter around the vehicle and keep people away. There was no requirement to attempt to rescue the crew. Let them do their jobs and egress. If they can't, then it's over.

Contingency aborts were all pretty thin.

Offline Zero-G

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 194
  • Switzerland
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3501 on: 03/13/2018 03:50 PM »
What is a "sawtooth doubler"? This piece of equipment is mentioned in the book "Bringing Columbia Home", but the author gives only a rudimentary description (page 164):
Quote
This two-foot by two-foot plate -roughly in the shape of the orbiter itself- had been bonded underneath the orbiter and then covered with tiles.
What is its correct designation and its actual function and purpose? Where exactly was it mounted and what is its actual shape? Was this piece unique to Columbia or did every orbiter have it?
"I still don't understand who I am: the first human or the last dog in space." - Yuri Gagarin

Offline brickmack

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 464
  • USA
  • Liked: 174
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3502 on: 03/14/2018 12:13 AM »
I've been looking through all the Shuttle manufacturing pictures I can find and can't find anything looking like this on any orbiter, though in fairness it is hard to find good shots of the underside before TPS application. A doubler is typically a repair patch though, basically a metal plate attached over a damaged section of a structure. A quick search turned up several Orbiter repairs of this type using that term, so it probably means the same here. Only thing I can guess was that the orbiter was damaged at some point prior. The terminology used ("had been bonded onto") kinda-sorta supports this.
« Last Edit: 03/14/2018 12:14 AM by brickmack »

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6180
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3503 on: 03/14/2018 12:50 AM »

What is the source and date of the manifest?  It isn't a NASA document.  It may be an error.


i received it from NASA as a kid. Among a load of "Information Summaries" brochures.

EDIT: on second thought, i might have gotten these two documents together with the STS press kits i requested before each flight from JSC (mail code AP-4).
As for the date, i must have been in '91 - i remember having them pinned on my wall and editing them as the years unfolded.

These look like manifests that were printed on the back cover of the JSC News Roundup from that period. I may still have some in my collection somewhere. Don't recall them being a standalone product, but JSC PAO works in mysterious ways.

STS-68 ended up getting the second flight of Space Radar Laboratory. I vaguely recall Inmarsat being on the manifest, but it must not have ever gotten within L-24 months, else someone from my group would have been assigned to design the deploy trajectory. (I worked IBSS deploy/retrieve on STS-39, and ORFEUS-SPAS deploy/retrieve on STS-51, re-manifested from STS-54.)
JRF

Offline wally

  • Member
  • Posts: 93
  • Romania
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3504 on: 03/23/2018 07:32 AM »
Can someone help me with the SSMEs serial numbers for STS-134 and STS-135? All I have is this chart, but it's not updated for the last two missions. Thank you.

Also, as a follow-up question, why does some engines have two or three numbers? Like 2012 | 2107 or 2036 | 2045?

Edit: I've found the answer to my first question: 2059, 2061 and 2057 for STS-134 and 2047, 2060, 2045 for STS-135.
« Last Edit: 03/23/2018 07:44 AM by wally »

Offline AnalogMan

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3005
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 770
  • Likes Given: 23
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3505 on: 03/23/2018 10:59 AM »

Also, as a follow-up question, why does some engines have two or three numbers? Like 2012 | 2107 or 2036 | 2045?


SSMEs were given a new serial number whenever there was a major upgrade to a new Phase or Block.

For the examples you gave:

2012 / 2107   Phase I / Phase II
2036 / 2045   Block I / Blocks IIA  & II

Offline Hog

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1246
  • Woodstock
  • Liked: 324
  • Likes Given: 970
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3506 on: 03/23/2018 02:45 PM »
Can someone help me with the SSMEs serial numbers for STS-134 and STS-135? All I have is this chart, but it's not updated for the last two missions. Thank you.

Also, as a follow-up question, why does some engines have two or three numbers? Like 2012 | 2107 or 2036 | 2045?

Edit: I've found the answer to my first question: 2059, 2061 and 2057 for STS-134 and 2047, 2060, 2045 for STS-135.
Don't forget the 2010 build E-2062 and the 2014 build E-2063.

ME-2063 was first hotfired on October 19, 2017.  3 month build condensed into 2 minutes.


Both are scheduled to support SLS-2.
Paul

Online penguin44

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 94
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 69
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3507 on: 03/24/2018 04:52 AM »
One question that popped into my mind last night was, what was the payload weight penalty for having the obss installed? Was the ability to throttle to 104.5% able to claw some of the weight back?
« Last Edit: 03/24/2018 04:53 AM by penguin44 »

Online penguin44

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 94
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 69
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3508 on: 04/16/2018 05:56 AM »
Wow, I expected someone would have an answer since you are all super fast! Usually it's answered as I hit post lol

Offline MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3909
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 482
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3509 on: 04/16/2018 03:05 PM »
One question that popped into my mind last night was, what was the payload weight penalty for having the obss installed? Was the ability to throttle to 104.5% able to claw some of the weight back?
Found this reference:

      "OBSS boom mass is listed as 536 lbs (243.1255 Kg) for STS-124 on "SPACE SHUTTLE MISSIONS SUMMARY" (NASA/TM–2011–216142)."

here: https://sourceforge.net/p/shuttleultra/tickets/49/

Offline AnalogMan

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3005
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 770
  • Likes Given: 23
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3510 on: 04/16/2018 04:25 PM »
One question that popped into my mind last night was, what was the payload weight penalty for having the obss installed? Was the ability to throttle to 104.5% able to claw some of the weight back?

The OBSS flight kit (MV0092A) is listed as 842 lb in Shuttle Payload Integration Cargo Evaluation (SPICE) documents. These are available in L2 for STS-130 thru STS-133.

See also:

http://www.wiki-zero.com/index.php?q=aHR0cHM6Ly9lbi53aWtpcGVkaWEub3JnL3dpa2kvU1RTLTExOQ

which also gives this mass (this is for the whole system, not just the boom)
« Last Edit: 04/16/2018 04:32 PM by AnalogMan »

Online penguin44

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 94
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 69
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3511 on: 04/17/2018 05:34 AM »
Awesome information thanks!

Offline capcomespace

  • Member
  • Posts: 90
  • france
    • capcom espace
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3512 on: 04/19/2018 05:00 PM »
I don't know if this question was in previous thread:
What is first mission STS tobe used the new RPSF at KSC for checkout the SRM motor ?
Didier Capdevila
www.capcomespace.net

Online penguin44

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 94
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 69
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3513 on: 04/20/2018 06:08 AM »
My memory is a little wacky but I believe it was sts-26, but don't quote me on it.

Offline capcomespace

  • Member
  • Posts: 90
  • france
    • capcom espace
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3514 on: 04/22/2018 05:05 AM »
Think you, SRM of STS 26 was checked in RPSF, It's sure. I thinked any mission before in 1985.
Didier Capdevila
www.capcomespace.net

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1022
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 472
  • Likes Given: 226
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3515 on: 05/13/2018 03:19 PM »
Shortly before launch there was always the step of clearing the caution/warning memory. Does this mean that during the pre-launch phase caution/warning messages were routine? And does anyone know what sorts of warnings would show up that needed to be cleared before launch?

Offline HelixSpiral

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 113
  • Cincinnati, OH
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3516 on: 05/15/2018 07:40 PM »
Cabin pressure for one. It was tested every time. There may have been nuisance alarms, or even real alarms that were then resolved by the crew and/or LCC. The memory was cleared to remove any "is that a new fault or that one from before liftoff?" moments. I recall from some in-cabin videos crews noting that there was nothing to clear during that step (they still performed the step anyway).

Offline Hog

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1246
  • Woodstock
  • Liked: 324
  • Likes Given: 970
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3517 on: 06/26/2018 06:54 PM »
Were there potential Shuttle crewmembers that refused to fly on proposed Shuttle-Centaur missions(Galileo, Ulysses, Magellan)?
Paul

Online penguin44

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 94
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 69
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3518 on: 06/27/2018 04:50 AM »
I don't think any of the astronauts would refuse an assignment. To do so, especially under George Abbey, would be career suicide.

Offline Hog

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1246
  • Woodstock
  • Liked: 324
  • Likes Given: 970
Re: Shuttle Q&A Part 5
« Reply #3519 on: 06/28/2018 11:51 AM »
I don't think any of the astronauts would refuse an assignment. To do so, especially under George Abbey, would be career suicide.
So long as it wasn't a Return To Launch Site trial for STS-1.
Paul

Tags: