-
#1260
by
mkirk
on 05 Sep, 2008 20:34
-
During STS-41, the crew experimented with voice command operated payload bay cameras. Was this a one time try-out, or are the cameras voice operated to this day?
No the shuttle's payload bay cameras are not voice operated, they are controlled by switches located on the aft flight deck (Panel A7). I was not aware that a voice system was ever tested, I'll have to look that up, but I can imagine how that would actually be more cumbersome.
Mark Kirkman
-
#1261
by
pippin
on 05 Sep, 2008 20:48
-
During STS-41, the crew experimented with voice command operated payload bay cameras. Was this a one time try-out, or are the cameras voice operated to this day?
From my experience with voice control systems I can imagine that that was not very useful. Voice control is usually seen as simple by people who don't know it while it actually turns out to be very combersome for anything other than very simple applictions and it's definitely slow because the data rate of natural speech is extremely low.
-
#1262
by
NavySpaceFan
on 05 Sep, 2008 21:21
-
During STS-41, the crew experimented with voice command operated payload bay cameras. Was this a one time try-out, or are the cameras voice operated to this day?
From my experience with voice control systems I can imagine that that was not very useful. Voice control is usually seen as simple by people who don't know it while it actually turns out to be very combersome for anything other than very simple applictions and it's definitely slow because the data rate of natural speech is extremely low.
Thanks guys!!!! The STS-41 press kit and the post-flight films both highlight this experiment. The voice commands did not seem too cumbersome.
-
#1263
by
shuttlefan
on 06 Sep, 2008 16:53
-
From a discussion over at the Yahoo Space Modelers Group comes a question concerning the replacement of SSME's. STS-51 and STS-55 both were pad aborts with the engines shutting down just before SRB ignition. In both cases, the SSME's were swapped for fresh ones. Question is: did the swap take place at the launchpad, or were the vehicles rolled back to the VAB?
woods170
As Dave S. mentioned both were done on the pad but after the STS-68 abort it was rolled back to the VAB and done there. I believe the reason was they were rolling STS-64/Discovery out that night and they didn't want two shuttles out on the pads during hurricane season.
-
#1264
by
TJL
on 14 Sep, 2008 13:52
-
Anyone know which shuttle launch was the last to use the WB 57 chase planes.
I've seen video of STS 116 (taken by the WB 57's), but haven't seen any since that flight.
Thank you.
-
#1265
by
nathan.moeller
on 14 Sep, 2008 17:55
-
STS-116 was the last mission during which the WB-57 imagery was utilized. After that they determined the imagery wasn't sufficient for use in debris-tracking operations.
-
#1266
by
Zoe
on 16 Sep, 2008 15:50
-
If there was a hold at a GLS milestone inside T-5 minutes and LOX drainback hold time was exceeded would this be an automatic scrub or would a recycle to T-5 minutes to re-establish LOX replenish be possible for a non-ISS mission like STS-125?
-
#1267
by
Jim
on 16 Sep, 2008 15:59
-
If there was a hold at a GLS milestone inside T-5 minutes and LOX drainback hold time was exceeded would this be an automatic scrub or would a recycle to T-5 minutes to re-establish LOX replenish be possible for a non-ISS mission like STS-125?
Scrub due to APU's running
-
#1268
by
Zoe
on 16 Sep, 2008 16:15
-
If there was a hold at a GLS milestone inside T-5 minutes and LOX drainback hold time was exceeded would this be an automatic scrub or would a recycle to T-5 minutes to re-establish LOX replenish be possible for a non-ISS mission like STS-125?
Scrub due to APU's running
So for STS-61-C on January 6 1986 LOX drainback hold time was not exceeded at T-31 seconds then and that's why they could recycle to T-20 minutes for a second attempt?
I'm not sure how far the second attempt got, this site
http://members.fortunecity.com/spaceshuttlealmanac/sts024.htm says the second cutoff was at T-5 minutes but I have also read that it was scrubbed at T-9 minutes as they could not clear the hold in time.
-
#1269
by
psloss
on 16 Sep, 2008 17:15
-
So for STS-61-C on January 6 1986 LOX drainback hold time was not exceeded at T-31 seconds then and that's why they could recycle to T-20 minutes for a second attempt?
I don't think exceeding LOX drainback and getting outside the engine "start box" necessarily prohibits a recycle for another attempt. There's just rarely been a case where there's a long enough launch window to accommodate the time it takes to recycle the shuttle vehicle for another attempt on the same day. (Let alone the time it takes to troubleshoot the problem that caused the recycle.)
That was an unique event; there's a good summary of what happened in the mission report; here's a copy from the Internet Archive:
http://web.archive.org/web/19990128031028/http://members.aol.com/WSNTWOYOU/STS24MR.HTMI'm not sure how far the second attempt got, this site http://members.fortunecity.com/spaceshuttlealmanac/sts024.htm says the second cutoff was at T-5 minutes but I have also read that it was scrubbed at T-9 minutes as they could not clear the hold in time.
It's phrased badly. They were no-go and cutoff at T-31 seconds, recycled to T-20 minutes and then counted down back to T-9. They eventually scrubbed because they ran out of launch window for the day. Whether or not they counted down to T-5 minutes and waited there isn't relevant to why they scrubbed. (Although I'd be interested in that particular trivia.)
-
#1270
by
Bejowawo
on 16 Sep, 2008 19:27
-
Will there be a RCO cable onboard STS-125 or is it planned to deliver one just in case STS-400 has to be launched?
Thanks!
-
#1271
by
robertross
on 17 Sep, 2008 00:47
-
I have a question about ET foam.
It was mentioned on another thread that exposure of the foam to UV light causes it to change color from yellow to brown. Would there be any degradation of the foam over time to this UV light? I'm thinking about the damaged ET tank in storage at MAF. If it does potentially degrade, would it be serious enough to require removal and re-application of new foam?
-
#1272
by
Jim
on 17 Sep, 2008 01:11
-
I have a question about ET foam.
It was mentioned on another thread that exposure of the foam to UV light causes it to change color from yellow to brown. Would there be any degradation of the foam over time to this UV light? I'm thinking about the damaged ET tank in storage at MAF. If it does potentially degrade, would it be serious enough to require removal and re-application of new foam?
The UV light in storage is low compared to outdoors
-
#1273
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 17 Sep, 2008 01:22
-
I have a question about ET foam.
It was mentioned on another thread that exposure of the foam to UV light causes it to change color from yellow to brown. Would there be any degradation of the foam over time to this UV light? I'm thinking about the damaged ET tank in storage at MAF. If it does potentially degrade, would it be serious enough to require removal and re-application of new foam?
I know that STS-1 and STS-2 used painted tanks to prevent degradation due to the long exposure expected at the pad.
-
#1274
by
rdale
on 17 Sep, 2008 01:37
-
Are you sure? I thought it was primarily cosmetic?
-
#1275
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 17 Sep, 2008 02:10
-
Are you sure? I thought it was primarily cosmetic?
I've seen both explanations stated as the reason why the first two tanks were painted.
-
#1276
by
Jim
on 17 Sep, 2008 06:08
-
Are you sure? I thought it was primarily cosmetic?
It was for UV protection
-
#1277
by
robertross
on 17 Sep, 2008 15:24
-
Are you sure? I thought it was primarily cosmetic?
It was for UV protection
The question would be if the low UV exposure is 24/7 or typically 9-5 (lights turned off at night, natural light filtration). Over time, continuous long term exposure to low levels might produce similar problems as short-term high intensity exposure. Maybe a different outcome might be seen.
If this is the case, perhaps they will have to do some destructive testing in a sample area on the far side (non-orbiter side) of the tank to see what (if any) detrimental effects of long-term UV exposure. They could most likely patch it up after the fact.
My concerns would be:
1) foam shedding due to either diminished surface bond strength due to age (not sure they would have baseline information of this, as I don't think they've had a tank sitting around for this length of time), OR cracking due to thermal cycling.
2) Degredation of the foam's thermal performance in the critical areas (bottom).
Adding also to that, I'm sure they would have blanked off all connection ports prior to storage. If they purge the tanks with dry Nitrogen to prevent water vapor ingress, is there a pressure equalization valve to balance the presure inside the tank and lines? There would have to be some means to prevent extreme expansion and contraction due to thermal cycling. Then the concern is expansion and contraction cycles of the foam over long periods...
-
#1278
by
Jim
on 17 Sep, 2008 16:50
-
as I don't think they've had a tank sitting around for this length of time
longer. Post Challenger
-
#1279
by
mtakala24
on 17 Sep, 2008 20:02
-
Will there be a RCO cable onboard STS-125 or is it planned to deliver one just in case STS-400 has to be launched?
Thanks!
I believe the only existing flight-worthty RCO cable kit is stored on the ISS. It was delivered on STS-114.
The other cable is at the Shuttle Avionics Integration Laboratory (SAIL) and is not flight-worthy.
The plan is, if STS-400 is needed, to have Atlantis do a destructive re-entry. Sadly.
Someone correct me if I'm not right.