-
#1300
by
Archibald
on 23 Sep, 2008 08:03
-
What's the highest orbit ever reached by a Shuttle ?
A related question : how high could climb a Shuttle ? 500 miles ?
Thanks in advance...
-
#1301
by
elmarko
on 23 Sep, 2008 08:44
-
Would be a Hubble orbit, I guess?
-
#1302
by
Jim
on 23 Sep, 2008 10:47
-
What's the highest orbit ever reached by a Shuttle ?
A related question : how high could climb a Shuttle ? 500 miles ?
Thanks in advance...
Depends if you want to carry a payload or not.
HST is the highest
-
#1303
by
Jorge
on 23 Sep, 2008 13:55
-
What's the highest orbit ever reached by a Shuttle ?
337 nmi, STS-82.
A related question : how high could climb a Shuttle ? 500 miles ?
About 650 nmi, if you give up deorbit capability and only raise one side of the orbit (i.e. the orbit would be about 650x340 nmi).
A little less than 500 nmi, if you insist on circularization.
And if you want to come home, the shuttle has already gone as high as it can go.
-
#1304
by
Danny Dot
on 23 Sep, 2008 14:05
-
What's the highest orbit ever reached by a Shuttle ?
337 nmi, STS-82.
A related question : how high could climb a Shuttle ? 500 miles ?
About 650 nmi, if you give up deorbit capability and only raise one side of the orbit (i.e. the orbit would be about 650x340 nmi).
A little less than 500 nmi, if you insist on circularization.
And if you want to come home, the shuttle has already gone as high as it can go.
My vote is we stick to the orbits that let us come home :-)
As a control/prop instructor, I learned of an unbuilt concept of a system to carry OMS prop in the payload bay. It was never built because you would have no payload. If I recall correctly there are some switches in the cockpit to operate the "pod".
Danny
-
#1305
by
Jorge
on 23 Sep, 2008 14:11
-
What's the highest orbit ever reached by a Shuttle ?
337 nmi, STS-82.
A related question : how high could climb a Shuttle ? 500 miles ?
About 650 nmi, if you give up deorbit capability and only raise one side of the orbit (i.e. the orbit would be about 650x340 nmi).
A little less than 500 nmi, if you insist on circularization.
And if you want to come home, the shuttle has already gone as high as it can go.
My vote is we stick to the orbits that let us come home :-)
As a control/prop instructor, I learned of an unbuilt concept of a system to carry OMS prop in the payload bay. It was never built because you would have no payload. If I recall correctly there are some switches in the cockpit to operate the "pod".
Danny
Yes, the switches for the "OMS Kit" are still on panel O8, right next to the switches for left and right OMS.
The scarring for the plumbing has, I think, been removed.
-
#1306
by
Jim
on 23 Sep, 2008 14:21
-
As a control/prop instructor, I learned of an unbuilt concept of a system to carry OMS prop in the payload bay. It was never built because you would have no payload. If I recall correctly there are some switches in the cockpit to operate the "pod".
Direct Insertion eliminated the need for the OMS kit
-
#1307
by
mark147
on 23 Sep, 2008 20:26
-
What was the reason why direct insertion wasn't used in the early missions? It seems as if it has lots of advantages (presumably why it's always used these days) but there must be some reason why they used to use two OMS burns.
-
#1308
by
NavySpaceFan
on 23 Sep, 2008 21:20
-
Question re: the OAST experiment, carried by DISCOVERY during STS-41D. How much did that experiment influence the design of the ISS's solar arrays? The IMAX footage from 41D showed OAST retracting, and it looked a lot like ISS arrays.
-
#1309
by
Jim
on 23 Sep, 2008 21:50
-
Question re: the OAST experiment, carried by DISCOVERY during STS-41D. How much did that experiment influence the design of the ISS's solar arrays? The IMAX footage from 41D showed OAST retracting, and it looked a lot like ISS arrays.
Exact same concept
-
#1310
by
Jim
on 23 Sep, 2008 21:57
-
What was the reason why direct insertion wasn't used in the early missions? It seems as if it has lots of advantages (presumably why it's always used these days) but there must be some reason why they used to use two OMS burns.
They were just figuring out the shuttle's capabilities and flight design. OMS-1 allowed for correcting dispersions during ascent. Also it made ET disposal easier. As confidence grew, OMS-1 was eliminated since the SSME's could provide the proper cutoff.
Mkirk or Jorge can provide a better answer
-
#1311
by
NavySpaceFan
on 23 Sep, 2008 23:15
-
Question re: the OAST experiment, carried by DISCOVERY during STS-41D. How much did that experiment influence the design of the ISS's solar arrays? The IMAX footage from 41D showed OAST retracting, and it looked a lot like ISS arrays.
Exact same concept
Just scaled larger for ISS?
-
#1312
by
Jim
on 24 Sep, 2008 01:23
-
Question re: the OAST experiment, carried by DISCOVERY during STS-41D. How much did that experiment influence the design of the ISS's solar arrays? The IMAX footage from 41D showed OAST retracting, and it looked a lot like ISS arrays.
Exact same concept
Just scaled larger for ISS?
Yes. They also were used on the MILSTAR spacecraft
-
#1313
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 24 Sep, 2008 02:01
-
Question re: the OAST experiment, carried by DISCOVERY during STS-41D. How much did that experiment influence the design of the ISS's solar arrays? The IMAX footage from 41D showed OAST retracting, and it looked a lot like ISS arrays.
Exact same concept
Just scaled larger for ISS?
Yes. They also were used on the MILSTAR spacecraft
Dont forget the Mir Cooperative Solar Array:
-
#1314
by
anasri1987
on 24 Sep, 2008 19:47
-
Hi all,
Thanks for all your help in my last assignment. The manual was really a lifesaver. I would require assistance with regards to the above topic.
So this is how my question goes. In the launch of the shuttle, the SRBs provide the extra boost for launch, am I right? I have known that there are connections between the SRBs and the external tank for the transfer of thrust between the SRBs and the main body. So, does all of the connections (3 in total, if I am not mistaken) play a role in the thrust transfer? If so, how does the mechanism works? Or is it just the lowest connection that will provide all the thrust to the main body?
If the thrust is distributed and not just provided by the lower connection, how much is it distributed between the connections?
I need to ask this question to see whether the compressive load at the bottom of the structure is minimised due to the distribution of the thrust.
Thanks in advance. I need to ask this as I know this is very similar to the mechanism used in ARES V (design project), where there is a thrust transfer between the SRBs and main body. Hope you all could help.
Regards,
Nasri
-
#1315
by
Jim
on 24 Sep, 2008 19:56
-
The SRB forward attachment takes the thrust load into the ET. The aft attachment is only for side loads
-
#1316
by
anasri1987
on 25 Sep, 2008 03:50
-
The SRB forward attachment takes the thrust load into the ET. The aft attachment is only for side loads
Thanks for your reply. But what side loads are present? Sorry mate for these stupid question, but I am really a newbie in this aspect.
Thanks
-
#1317
by
Jim
on 25 Sep, 2008 11:17
-
The SRB forward attachment takes the thrust load into the ET. The aft attachment is only for side loads
Thanks for your reply. But what side loads are present? Sorry mate for these stupid question, but I am really a newbie in this aspect.
Thrust vectoring induces side load. Aero effects on the vehicle induce loads. If there weren't side loads, then there would be no need for a attachment
-
#1318
by
toddbronco2
on 30 Sep, 2008 22:11
-
I searched and couldn't find this in the Shuttle Q&A section, but I was wondering about lightning.
Let's say there was a shuttle stack half way between the pad and VAB when a freak thunderstorm showed up completely out of nowhere (hypothetical remember) and the the shuttle stack was hit by lightning. What are the dangers there? Are we talking about flight computers or other avionics in the orbiter being fried? Would the damage be as insignificant as discolored foam on the external tank? Obviously the external tank would be empty when the stack is on the move, but could the SRB's ignite from a lightning strike?
I completely understand why nobody would ever want to leave a shuttle outside unprotected long enough to find out a solid answer to this question, but has it ever been studied?
-
#1319
by
brahmanknight
on 01 Oct, 2008 02:58
-
I have read that NASA didn't want to land on decending nodes after the Columbia accident because of noctilucent clouds. How would that adversely affect reentry?