-
#1320
by
Jim
on 01 Oct, 2008 03:23
-
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?
TPS erosion
-
#1321
by
Jim
on 01 Oct, 2008 03:25
-
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?
No, that is why it is avoided. And that is why the shuttle avionics is retested at the pad when there are close hits.
-
#1322
by
Lawntonlookirs
on 02 Oct, 2008 14:21
-
To get to the higher orbit for Hubble, where does the extra fuel for the burn tim occure? Is it the SRB, SSME or the orbitor itself?
-
#1323
by
Jorge
on 02 Oct, 2008 14:23
-
To get to the higher orbit for Hubble, where does the extra fuel for the burn tim occure? Is it the SRB, SSME or the orbitor itself?
Answer is part SSME, part OMS. Shuttle flights to HST perform direct insertion to an orbit with ~300 nmi apogee, then the OMS is used for the rendezvous burns to raise the other side of the orbit.
-
#1324
by
Lawntonlookirs
on 02 Oct, 2008 14:37
-
Thanks Jorge. I should have placed this question here, and thought of that afterward. So I would guess they would have to load a little more LO and LH to the external fuel tank.
-
#1325
by
Jim
on 02 Oct, 2008 15:06
-
To get to the higher orbit for Hubble, where does the extra fuel for the burn tim occure? Is it the SRB, SSME or the orbitor itself?
Answer is part SSME, part OMS. Shuttle flights to HST perform direct insertion to an orbit with ~300 nmi apogee, then the OMS is used for the rendezvous burns to raise the other side of the orbit.
The payload is also lighter allowing for a higher orbit
-
#1326
by
mkirk
on 02 Oct, 2008 15:28
-
Thanks Jorge. I should have placed this question here, and thought of that afterward. So I would guess they would have to load a little more LO and LH to the external fuel tank.
No, both tanks are ALWAYS loaded to the 100% level and all ascents are planned in a manner that ensures a full ET is more than enough propellant with some left over margin.
Mark Kirkman
-
#1327
by
padrat
on 02 Oct, 2008 17:28
-
Yeah, the way I understand it is they like having some extra propellant in there as extra protection to keep the pumps from running dry, as I'm sure everyone remembers from the ECO sensor fiasco.
-
#1328
by
Danny Dot
on 03 Oct, 2008 01:43
-
Thanks Jorge. I should have placed this question here, and thought of that afterward. So I would guess they would have to load a little more LO and LH to the external fuel tank.
No, both tanks are ALWAYS loaded to the 100% level and all ascents are planned in a manner that ensures a full ET is more than enough propellant with some left over margin.
Mark Kirkman
Speaking of loaded tanks. Is the pad cleared of personnel during tanking? It seams to me that there is extra danger during the tanking process. Then after tanking I assume only people needed to load the crew into the orbiter would be needed. I have seen the video of the disaster of the large Russian booster.
Danny
-
#1329
by
DaveS
on 03 Oct, 2008 01:49
-
Speaking of loaded tanks. Is the pad cleared of personnel during tanking? It seams to me that there is extra danger during the tanking process. Then after tanking I assume only people needed to load the crew into the orbiter would be needed. I have seen the video of the disaster of the large Russian booster.
Danny
Yes, pad is cleared for ET tanking ops. The only ones at the pad after tanking is the OCC, FIT and FLT CRW.
-
#1330
by
Jim
on 03 Oct, 2008 01:53
-
OCC and FIT?
-
#1331
by
mkirk
on 03 Oct, 2008 02:06
-
OCC and FIT?
Orbiter Closeout Crew
Final Inspection Team (i.e. Ice Team)
Mark Kirkman
-
#1332
by
Jim
on 03 Oct, 2008 11:18
-
OCC and FIT?
Orbiter Closeout Crew
Final Inspection Team (i.e. Ice Team)
Mark Kirkman
Just never saw those acronyms. Don't recall even seeing them in S0007 or used on the net
-
#1333
by
Sith
on 03 Oct, 2008 19:29
-
When will be decided if the Shuttle Mission will be extended or not?
-
#1334
by
Lawntonlookirs
on 03 Oct, 2008 19:31
-
With the change in the HST mission, I was just woundering why they couldn't rotate the Orbitor. Have Atlantis go to the ISS, Endeavor back to the VAB for the HST, and Discover for the LON.
-
#1335
by
Jim
on 03 Oct, 2008 19:42
-
With the change in the HST mission, I was just woundering why they couldn't rotate the Orbitor. Have Atlantis go to the ISS, Endeavor back to the VAB for the HST, and Discover for the LON.
The docking system was removed for the HST mission
-
#1336
by
Lawntonlookirs
on 03 Oct, 2008 19:45
-
Thanks Jim. So regardless Atlantis would have to be destacked and go back to the OPF.
-
#1337
by
psloss
on 03 Oct, 2008 19:55
-
Thanks Jim. So regardless Atlantis would have to be destacked and go back to the OPF.
I don't believe that has been decided yet. It's possible that she'll stay in the VAB until they roll back out to the pad (as during the repairs to the hail damage to the STS-117 ET).
-
#1338
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 04 Oct, 2008 18:12
-
This may not be the perfect fit for Shuttle Q&A, but why was Chandra launched on the shuttle rather than a Titan IV? Titan was built to IUS payloads, and after Challenger i thought that those type of missions (flying just to deploy a upperstage/satellite combo) were frowned upon?
The only thing I could think of was that Chandra had a larger volume than a DSP satellite, however I dont know.
-
#1339
by
Jim
on 04 Oct, 2008 19:48
-
This may not be the perfect fit for Shuttle Q&A, but why was Chandra launched on the shuttle rather than a Titan IV? Titan was built to IUS payloads, and after Challenger i thought that those type of missions (flying just to deploy a upperstage/satellite combo) were frowned upon?
The only thing I could think of was that Chandra had a larger volume than a DSP satellite, however I dont know.
There were many reasons, one was that the USAF only bought one T-IV for NASA