-
#1560
by
Lawntonlookirs
on 19 Dec, 2008 19:19
-
It will be interesting to hear the responce to this question. I would think that without a load attached to it it would probably not fly.
-
#1561
by
Marsman
on 19 Dec, 2008 19:38
-
Well, assuming it was launched straight up and then arched over 10-20 degrees due to gravitational effects, it would reach a peak velocity of approximately 5.08 km/ sec at a burnout altitude of 205 km. If it coasted to apogee, it would reach about 1750 km. These are very first order estimates though, so if you want a specific answer calculate it yourself.
As to whether it would actually fly, I don't see why not theoretically. Ares I flies in theory too.
However, initial control may be a little shaky not to mention the extreme dynamic pressure (maxq) would probably shred it.
-
#1562
by
Trazix
on 19 Dec, 2008 19:52
-
Thanks for your very prompt reply's. I would not know where to begin to calculate the exact speed as I am a certified dumbass. Is there a simple formula to calculate the speed
-
#1563
by
Marsman
on 19 Dec, 2008 20:34
-
Well sort of. Google "rocket equation" and it will give you a formula that is easier to read when its not in HTML formst. It calculates the change in velocity by burning fuel at a specific efficency, but it doesn't take into account atmospheric effects. Try the free Orbiter flight simulator
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/ to model different vehicles inside and outside an atmosphere. It's actually fairly powerful once you get the hang of it.
-
#1564
by
shuttlefan
on 20 Dec, 2008 00:59
-
Sort of off-topic, but have you seen the Space Shuttle part of "When We Left Earth:The NASA Missions" where the newly-released video of the Challenger accident shows one of the SRBs up close as it keeps flying until it's destroyed by range Safety? Very morbid, of course, because of the circumstances, but that gives you a little bit of footage on what an SRB looks like flying on its own.
-
#1565
by
shuttlefan
on 26 Dec, 2008 16:00
-
Can someone shed more light on the STS-80 pre-launch hydrogen leak concerns? Was this something that was discovered at the beginning of tanking 9 hrs. prior to launch and analyzed until they came out of the 3-minute hold at T-31s, or did nobody have any idea about it until T-31s.? Thanks in advance!!
-
#1566
by
psloss
on 27 Dec, 2008 14:44
-
Can someone shed more light on the STS-80 pre-launch hydrogen leak concerns? Was this something that was discovered at the beginning of tanking 9 hrs. prior to launch and analyzed until they came out of the 3-minute hold at T-31s, or did nobody have any idea about it until T-31s.? Thanks in advance!!
They were prepared well in advance and the aft GH2 concentration tripped the LCC limit many seconds before the clock reached the T-31 milestone. The issue was noted at the beginning of tanking and one of the "what ifs" that was discussed was what might happen after the LH2 tank was pressurized inside of 2 minutes.
Based on post launch comments and the little bit of public IFA documentation, it sounds like the procedure to watch the data for a pre-planned period of time was in place before the issue was observed:
http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/news/columbia/anomaly/STS80.pdf
-
#1567
by
shuttlefan
on 28 Dec, 2008 01:33
-
Can someone shed more light on the STS-80 pre-launch hydrogen leak concerns? Was this something that was discovered at the beginning of tanking 9 hrs. prior to launch and analyzed until they came out of the 3-minute hold at T-31s, or did nobody have any idea about it until T-31s.? Thanks in advance!!
They were prepared well in advance and the aft GH2 concentration tripped the LCC limit many seconds before the clock reached the T-31 milestone. The issue was noted at the beginning of tanking and one of the "what ifs" that was discussed was what might happen after the LH2 tank was pressurized inside of 2 minutes.
Based on post launch comments and the little bit of public IFA documentation, it sounds like the procedure to watch the data for a pre-planned period of time was in place before the issue was observed:
http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/news/columbia/anomaly/STS80.pdf
Thanks!!!
-
#1568
by
brahmanknight
on 01 Jan, 2009 00:18
-
Why is the mid deck called the mid deck instead of the lower deck?
-
#1569
by
Jim
on 01 Jan, 2009 00:28
-
Why is the mid deck called the mid deck instead of the lower deck?
The lower deck is beneath the floor of the middeck
-
#1570
by
tnphysics
on 04 Jan, 2009 22:10
-
What caused Columbia to break up in the way it did?
-
#1571
by
rdale
on 04 Jan, 2009 22:14
-
Not the best worded question - how about checking out the report that was just posted and asking specifics from that?
-
#1572
by
tnphysics
on 04 Jan, 2009 22:16
-
Okay-why did the forward fuselage break from the midbody?
-
#1573
by
Jim
on 04 Jan, 2009 22:43
-
Okay-why did the forward fuselage break from the midbody?
Manufacturing splice
-
#1574
by
elmarko
on 08 Jan, 2009 19:10
-
After reading Wayne Hale's excellent blog entries on Black Zones, I have some niggling queries about them. I'll number them, and you guys can feel free to take any of them that you want to take. They are in no particular order.
1) First of all, does anyone have any kind of "list" about where the current black zones are? I realise this is mission dependant because of weight, performance, and weather conditions at the time, but are there any kind of "ballpark" figures that can be quoted, either due to actual simulations being carried out or due to anecdotal evidence from simulators and the like?
2a) Hale defines a Black Zone as a situation where a loss of an engine or engines results in a condition where you will lose the reentry vehicle
and crew (my emphasis). With this in mind, is any condition resulting in a bailout technically a Black Zone, because you have lost the vehicle?
2b) I could have substituted "bailout" with "contingency abort" there, but seen as some contingency aborts can end with a runway landing, that would not really apply as a "Black Zone" I guess?
3) Hale mentions that:
The Abort Once Around (AOA) mission - which is exactly what it sounds like - is basically not used these days except for problems like a big air leak from the crew cabin.
I would have thought that an AoA would be a bad idea with an air leak, and that a TAL or RTLS would be preferable? Can someone shed any light on this please?
I'm sure I had more, but can't think of them right now. Maybe later.
-
#1575
by
Jorge
on 08 Jan, 2009 19:26
-
After reading Wayne Hale's excellent blog entries on Black Zones, I have some niggling queries about them. I'll number them, and you guys can feel free to take any of them that you want to take. They are in no particular order.
1) First of all, does anyone have any kind of "list" about where the current black zones are? I realise this is mission dependant because of weight, performance, and weather conditions at the time, but are there any kind of "ballpark" figures that can be quoted, either due to actual simulations being carried out or due to anecdotal evidence from simulators and the like?
All two-engine-out and stuck throttle procedures are generally survivable, either to landing or bailout. There are some RTLS cases, such as two engines out near Vrel = 0, where aerodynamic effects are uncertain and survivability is questionable for some orbiter weight and c.g. combinations. As a result, 2 EO RTLS aborts near Vrel = 0 have enhanced maneuvering to increase safe ET separation dynamics, alleviating ET recontact and increasing survivability.
Three-out black zones are as follows:
3 OUT BLACK ZONES RATIONALE
#1 FIRST STAGE (SRB ignition to staging): Structural failure, separation dynamics, or c.g. outside limits
#2 SECOND STAGE (VI=8-13K): Excessive EAS (>470 kts) during pull-out
#3 RTLS PPA: Excessive EAS during pull-out
#4 RTLS VREL=0: Failure to achieve alpha recovery, loss of directional control, or excessive EAS during pull-out
#5 RTLS EAS >= 40: Aerodynamics cause loss of control prior to MM 602
2a) Hale defines a Black Zone as a situation where a loss of an engine or engines results in a condition where you will lose the reentry vehicle and crew (my emphasis). With this in mind, is any condition resulting in a bailout technically a Black Zone, because you have lost the vehicle?
No. Any condition that allows stable recovery to bailout, but not intact landing, is considered a survivable zone. Black zones are loss of crew
and vehicle, not crew
or vehicle.
2b) I could have substituted "bailout" with "contingency abort" there, but seen as some contingency aborts can end with a runway landing, that would not really apply as a "Black Zone" I guess?
Correct.
(edit - fixed quoting)
3) Hale mentions that:
The Abort Once Around (AOA) mission - which is exactly what it sounds like - is basically not used these days except for problems like a big air leak from the crew cabin.
I would have thought that an AoA would be a bad idea with an air leak, and that a TAL or RTLS would be preferable?
Sure, if you're still at a velocity when you can do one. What if you're already past Last TAL, or even post-MECO? AOA is the only survivable option at that point.
-
#1576
by
elmarko
on 08 Jan, 2009 19:35
-
Regarding 2a)
I don't know why I even asked that, I basically read things totally wrong. Apologies for that.
Thanks for answering the other questions so quickly, though!
-
#1577
by
elmarko
on 08 Jan, 2009 19:37
-
Although, having said that, there's no guarantee that a crew member WILL survive at sea in an inflatable raft.
But, is that counted as "survivable" because it COULD be survivable?
I realise I am basically being a pedant here, but I am trying to understand the absolute meaning of some of the terms.
Edit: Really, this is how I should have phrased 2a) - I knew exactly what I meant but didn't word it correctly. I was just thinking that a bailout is not automatically survivable. But I guess that it considered as such.
-
#1578
by
Jorge
on 08 Jan, 2009 19:44
-
Although, having said that, there's no guarantee that a crew member WILL survive at sea in an inflatable raft.
But, is that counted as "survivable" because it COULD be survivable?
Yes.
-
#1579
by
usn_skwerl
on 14 Jan, 2009 05:47
-
This is kind of a personal question, so it's fairly important to me...
My now deceased father had a huge hand in building an oven carried by at least the first three orbiters. Are the same ovens (I'm not sure what size, material, location, quantity, etc) from the 80's or early 90's still installed on the orbiters? Are there any NASA employees present that could provide pics of any/all ovens used board the orbiters? He's known for signing most of his productions, so it's possible that his signature could be in an inconspicuous area of the ovens, so it'd be phenomenal if I could see them.
The issue is that I was too young at the time to ask the right questions of him, but he did make a comment about one of his ovens flying aboard Challenger when she was destroyed. If it's any help, his surname was Noe, He worked for a subsidiary of General Signal (more accurately, Blue M).
Thanks greatly for your time and help.
