Hi all.a question regarding the HAC. Why at the beginning the HAC was a cylinder and and not a cone? and also why for the OFT missions the HAC (which was a cylinder) was flown following a straight-in approach and not an overhead approach?Thanks very muchDavide
Hi all.A question regarding TPS on Columbia. Why throughtout the program up to the last mission the LRSI tiles on the nose and upper wing surface where not replaced by the AFRSI as in the other Orbiters? And also why were the black tiles kept in place on the glove area of the wings?Thanks very muchDavide
And also why were the black tiles kept in place on the glove area of the wings?
The black chine areas on Columbia were to minimize on-orbit thermal stresses on the underlying structure; later vehicles incorporated structural changes that made the extra thermal absorption unnecessary.
So that suggests that somewhere in their archives NASA has some detailed test data that shows Al-2219 and Al-Li 2195 in a given thickness develops a certain amount of crack behavior when subjected to n cycles of pressure/cryo exposure.Assuming you have access to that sort of data, what is the typical solution if you need to increase the number of safe cycles? Is it mostly a question of thickening the material up and just taking the weight penalty?-MG.
I'm not enough of a rocket scientist to crunch the numbers, so I'll ask.How much of a payload increase to ISS orbit would an STS with 3 SSME's at 109% bring?Then, add 5-seg SRB's to the 109% SSMEs, and how much does it increase (assuming the stack can take those loads)?
Hey Dave SThe space shuttle approach landing and rollout flight procedures handbook has a great run down of the spread brake logic. Do you have access to that? Also I think I covered it as well in an earlier q&a. If those don't help let me know and I will try and cover it again.Mark Kirkman