-
#1100
by
Lawntonlookirs
on 16 Jun, 2008 19:29
-
Does anyone know what the "fondue Fry" that they are thinking of using on pad 39 A is, as far as a trade name?
-
#1101
by
skomarek
on 17 Jun, 2008 02:17
-
Pad Question: I noticed on one of the webcams several days after the last launch that the doors to the PCR were open.
I was curious:
1) Is the change out room actually exposed to the outside?
2) If so, do they have to do a substantial cleaning to recertify the room back to a certain level of cleanliness?
Please forgive a newbie if this has been answered somewhere. I did a search and did not find any answers.
-
#1102
by
Jim
on 17 Jun, 2008 14:21
-
Pad Question: I noticed on one of the webcams several days after the last launch that the doors to the PCR were open.
I was curious:
1) Is the change out room actually exposed to the outside?
2) If so, do they have to do a substantial cleaning to recertify the room back to a certain level of cleanliness?
Was the PGHM inside visible?
-
#1103
by
skomarek
on 17 Jun, 2008 14:58
-
Pad Question: I noticed on one of the webcams several days after the last launch that the doors to the PCR were open.
I was curious:
1) Is the change out room actually exposed to the outside?
2) If so, do they have to do a substantial cleaning to recertify the room back to a certain level of cleanliness?
Was the PGHM inside visible?
It appeared to be. I sure thought I saw the platforms/levels on the inside. I wish I would have gotten a screen grab, but alas I didn't.
-
#1104
by
Jim
on 17 Jun, 2008 15:02
-
Pad Question: I noticed on one of the webcams several days after the last launch that the doors to the PCR were open.
I was curious:
1) Is the change out room actually exposed to the outside?
2) If so, do they have to do a substantial cleaning to recertify the room back to a certain level of cleanliness?
Was the PGHM inside visible?
It appeared to be. I sure thought I saw the platforms/levels on the inside. I wish I would have gotten a screen grab, but alas I didn't.
then yes and yes to your questions
-
#1105
by
RandyP
on 17 Jun, 2008 17:56
-
First time poster, I've enjoyed the site for the last year.
Why not leave the OBSS on the station at the earlist possible shuttle flight and perform docked late inspections for the remaining shuttle visits like STS-123 did? The launch mass savings could be used for additional on orbit spares.
-
#1106
by
quickshot89
on 17 Jun, 2008 18:04
-
First time poster, I've enjoyed the site for the last year.
Why not leave the OBSS on the station at the earlist possible shuttle flight and perform docked late inspections for the remaining shuttle visits like STS-123 did? The launch mass savings could be used for additional on orbit spares.
it is happening, there is a topic about it somewhere
-
#1107
by
Jorge
on 17 Jun, 2008 18:25
-
First time poster, I've enjoyed the site for the last year.
Why not leave the OBSS on the station at the earlist possible shuttle flight and perform docked late inspections for the remaining shuttle visits like STS-123 did? The launch mass savings could be used for additional on orbit spares.
it is happening, there is a topic about it somewhere
The topic was about leaving it on ISS at end-of-program, not at the earliest possible shuttle flight.
-
#1108
by
quickshot89
on 17 Jun, 2008 19:16
-
earliest possible flight is technically the last flight tbh
-
#1109
by
Jorge
on 17 Jun, 2008 19:34
-
earliest possible flight is technically the last flight tbh
Agreed, but that is not what the original questioner was asking, referring to late inspections on subsequent missions.
-
#1110
by
rdale
on 17 Jun, 2008 20:14
-
Why not leave the OBSS on the station at the earlist possible shuttle flight and perform docked late inspections for the remaining shuttle visits like STS-123 did?
Because there is a reduction in safety with the lack of OBSS on initial survey... And OBSS wasn't left off due to mass - but obstructions.
-
#1111
by
Jorge
on 17 Jun, 2008 21:11
-
Why not leave the OBSS on the station at the earlist possible shuttle flight and perform docked late inspections for the remaining shuttle visits like STS-123 did?
Because there is a reduction in safety with the lack of OBSS on initial survey... And OBSS wasn't left off due to mass - but obstructions.
Right. And the safety reduction is not just due to the delay in the initial inspection, but also due to OBSS inspections being riskier while docked because the clearances are tighter.
-
#1112
by
RandyP
on 18 Jun, 2008 17:11
-
Why not leave the OBSS on the station at the earlist possible shuttle flight and perform docked late inspections for the remaining shuttle visits like STS-123 did?
Because there is a reduction in safety with the lack of OBSS on initial survey... And OBSS wasn't left off due to mass - but obstructions.
Right. And the safety reduction is not just due to the delay in the initial inspection, but also due to OBSS inspections being riskier while docked because the clearances are tighter.
Thanks for the responses.
I appreciate the slight reduction in safety without the OBSS, but NASA did judge this to be acceptable for STS-123 & STS-124 in order to get Kibo launched, why not in order to lift additional usable payload which would remain in orbit . With the continuing ET tank improvements reducing risk, perhaps NASA would consider the ET tank improvements to more than offset the slight reduction in safety without the OBSS.
If we had eight launches without the OBSS, would this be enough mass savings to launch a set of TBAs for the SARJ repair without bumping something else?
-
#1113
by
Jorge
on 18 Jun, 2008 17:42
-
Why not leave the OBSS on the station at the earlist possible shuttle flight and perform docked late inspections for the remaining shuttle visits like STS-123 did?
Because there is a reduction in safety with the lack of OBSS on initial survey... And OBSS wasn't left off due to mass - but obstructions.
Right. And the safety reduction is not just due to the delay in the initial inspection, but also due to OBSS inspections being riskier while docked because the clearances are tighter.
Thanks for the responses.
I appreciate the slight reduction in safety without the OBSS, but NASA did judge this to be acceptable for STS-123 & STS-124 in order to get Kibo launched, why not in order to lift additional usable payload which would remain in orbit .
Because Kibo is a critical IP element of ISS and assembly could not be completed without it.
-
#1114
by
kneecaps
on 18 Jun, 2008 22:49
-
Purge Sequence 4 Question...
Reason for the "4" -- Guessing that it refers to the testing for four systems (aerosurface and engines) that are run through at that point in the count (T - 4 minutes)... elevon, rudder, speed brake and main engines (hence the four). Is this correct? If not, why the "4"?
Thanks.
There are 4 purge modes (or sequences) that are performed to condition the engines and main propulsion system for start by configuring valves and manipulating helium, nitrogen and propellant flows. Purge Sequence 4 is the last of these and runs from T-4 minutes until Start Initiation at which time all purges are terminated.
Mark Kirkman
Ah, knew I could count on the K-Man!
Much obliged, Mark.
If your on L2 checkout the Booster system brief! You wont regret it if you like SSME detail.
-
#1115
by
shuttlelegs
on 20 Jun, 2008 06:00
-
Could someone point me in the right direction or has the manual for stacking restrictions etc in the VAB. Like I belive when there is a launch the doors facing the pad are closed and the max number of SRB segments allowed in the VAB is 16 etc.
Thank you
-
#1116
by
usn_skwerl
on 21 Jun, 2008 04:16
-
And no more L2 discussion, please.
I'm jealous, because with inflation doing it's thing, and gas prices, etc. It'll be a few months before I can even consider getting in the deep end of the pool.
-
#1117
by
grakenverb
on 23 Jun, 2008 17:16
-
What is used for the SSME ignitor? Is it something as simple as fireworks?
-
#1118
by
mkirk
on 23 Jun, 2008 22:06
-
What is used for the SSME ignitor? Is it something as simple as fireworks?
There are six spark igniters; two in each pre-burner and two in the main combustion chamber. They operate off of 26 volt dc power and generate about 10-kilovolts and 50 sparks per second.
Mark Kirkman
-
#1119
by
ChrisC
on 24 Jun, 2008 16:46
-
Not sure if that is what grakenverb was referring to. How about the spark generators that start running during the seconds prior to SSME startup, throwing sparks at the SSME nozzles?
