DISCUSSION: The forward RCS oxidizer aft Z strut failed in Euler buckling due to the lift-off dynamic response from the SRB overpressure. The forward andaft Z axis tank struts on both the fuel and the oxidizer tanks were replaced with struts reinforced by plies of boron/epoxy. The rod end diameter of the fuel tank struts wasincreased by 1/16 in. to be the same as the diameter of the oxidizer struts. The base heat shield left and right struts were reinforced and replaced. All other large mass support systems were reassessed for positive margins. CONCLUSION: Z axisaccelerations exceeded design limits due to SRB overpressure which resulted in deformation of the forward RCS oxidizer tank aft Z strut. CORRECTIVE_ACTION:Forward RCS struts were modified and replaced. Base heat shield left and right struts were reinforced and replaced. All large mass structures were analyzed and found tohave positive margins of safety. CAR ANALYSIS: Descriptions of damage, causes, and corrective actions are defined in the preceding. [not included in original problemreport] EFFECTS_ON_SUBSEQUENT_MISSIONS: None
A theoretical question: What is the maximum payload the Shuttle with Centaur (both versions) could have pushed to a standard GTO (*) or to a trans-Mars trajectory? (*) I know that most of such missions would had smaller satellites doing direct injection to geostationary, but just let's say that we have the satellite making the circulation burns here. Also what is the maximum size of the volume that can be allocated to the payload in the Shuttlr Orbiter cargo bay?
Re-posting a question I have from the Shuttle-Centaur thread:Quote from: Galactic Penguin SST on 12/16/2017 02:08 amA theoretical question: What is the maximum payload the Shuttle with Centaur (both versions) could have pushed to a standard GTO (*) or to a trans-Mars trajectory? (*) I know that most of such missions would had smaller satellites doing direct injection to geostationary, but just let's say that we have the satellite making the circulation burns here. Also what is the maximum size of the volume that can be allocated to the payload in the Shuttlr Orbiter cargo bay?The figures I have seen are only for direct geostationary insertion missions, and they don't give out the payload volume that can be used (which looked rather small).
Sorry to hijack your post, but I am surprised at the potential FOD this tech is wearing. Watch, bracelet, pen in pocket...Maybe in this particular image this was a retired orbiter or otherwise not space-bound.
Good evening all, we have just watched the 2 Mission Control documentaries on YouTube and we wondered whether there were always film crews in Mission Control or where they there because there was a whiff of an issue, this relates particularly to the SLS-107 disaster, which seemed to have been covered by a number of cameras in amongst the controllers at a very critical time, or is it perhaps clever editing is existing footage to provide pictures for the r3corded audio?I hope I’m mak8ngbsome sense?CheersJohn
unpacking after moving house, i came accross two old Shuttle manifests. Going through them, i stumbled over an Inmarsat payload manifested for the 4th quarter of 1994. A late 1991 version of the manifest, has the Inmarsat payload removed and the secondary objective (SFU-RETR) moved to 1995. There is an empty Atlantis for STS-68 manifested for August '94 so maybe that was supposed to be the Inmarsat flight.Obviously, there was never an Inmarsat that was deployed by Shuttle but i have not yet heared about one of their payloads being switched from Shuttle to an ELV. Was it just an experiment carried aboard (although, it appears to be a primary payload in the manifest)? Can an anyone shed light on that? Thanks!
What is the source and date of the manifest? It isn't a NASA document. It may be an error.