-
#1580
by
Jim
on 14 Jan, 2009 11:37
-
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.
What did the oven do? Was it for an experiment? There wasn't an oven for food. Just a warmer.
-
#1581
by
jacqmans
on 14 Jan, 2009 15:17
-
I've been trying to find out what the cockpit and cabin configuration of Enterprise was like. I found one quick picture on a video of the Landing Tests, but it only showed the Commander's seat area for a few seconds.
Thanks!
Jon C.
Of the 500 + High res Enterprise photos I have these, show what it looks like the best, I think.
-
#1582
by
jacqmans
on 14 Jan, 2009 15:25
-
And this is what was left of the Cockpit after the free flights, photo from around 1983
-
#1583
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 14 Jan, 2009 15:32
-
And this is what was left of the Cockpit after the free flights, photo from around 1983
Did they use the displays for Discovery or Atlantis?
-
#1584
by
usn_skwerl
on 15 Jan, 2009 02:33
-
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.
What did the oven do? Was it for an experiment? There wasn't an oven for food. Just a warmer.
I really don't know. I'd assume it was for experiments, because I remember him saying it wasn't for food as well...like I said, I regret not knowing what to ask, but I was still pretty young, about 10 or so, and he just built them and sent them on their way. (If it's relevant, Blue M was located in Blue Island, IL.) his hand gestures suggested it was about 6-8 inches high, by about a foot (or slightly more) wide. my memory is a bit vague though, as this was almost 20 years ago....I wish I had more info
-
#1585
by
Lee Jay
on 15 Jan, 2009 02:56
-
In the DIRECT thread we were discussing tank stability without pressurization. What is the requirement for the ET in that area? Obviously it's pressurized for flight, so I'm just referring to ground handling, shipping, stacking, rollout, etc. I vaguely remember it being pressurized with GN2, but I'm not sure if that's for structural stability or just to keep out moisture and reduce corrosion, or even if I'm remembering it correctly.
EDIT: I know the intertank isn't pressurized so I'm just referring to the LOX and LH2 tanks.
-
#1586
by
Jim
on 15 Jan, 2009 11:41
-
In the DIRECT thread we were discussing tank stability without pressurization. What is the requirement for the ET in that area? Obviously it's pressurized for flight, so I'm just referring to ground handling, shipping, stacking, rollout, etc. I vaguely remember it being pressurized with GN2, but I'm not sure if that's for structural stability or just to keep out moisture and reduce corrosion, or even if I'm remembering it correctly.
EDIT: I know the intertank isn't pressurized so I'm just referring to the LOX and LH2 tanks.
The ET is structurually stable without pressurization. The pressurization inflight is for engine inlet conditions.. The GN2 blanket purge is just for contamination
-
#1587
by
HelixSpiral
on 15 Jan, 2009 19:30
-
Would an ATO on an ISS or HST flight result in ending the mission because of insufficient OMS prop to reach the ISS/HST? Does it depend on the performance margin for the flight?
-
#1588
by
Jim
on 15 Jan, 2009 19:43
-
Would an ATO on an ISS or HST flight result in ending the mission because of insufficient OMS prop to reach the ISS/HST? Does it depend on the performance margin for the flight?
depends on the margin
-
#1589
by
Jorge
on 15 Jan, 2009 20:00
-
Would an ATO on an ISS or HST flight result in ending the mission because of insufficient OMS prop to reach the ISS/HST? Does it depend on the performance margin for the flight?
For an HST flight it almost definitely would result in ending the mission. HST flights require almost all the OMS prop to get up to/down from HST altitude so you really can't tolerate much of a MECO underspeed; anything big enough to require an ATO OMS dump would pretty much rule out going to HST.
For an ISS flight it depends on what the OMS margins are on that particular flight, how big an OMS dump was required and the capability of ISS to lower its orbit to meet the shuttle. This is called a Joint Underspeed Recovery (JURe).
-
#1590
by
padrat
on 20 Jan, 2009 14:38
-
In the DIRECT thread we were discussing tank stability without pressurization. What is the requirement for the ET in that area? Obviously it's pressurized for flight, so I'm just referring to ground handling, shipping, stacking, rollout, etc. I vaguely remember it being pressurized with GN2, but I'm not sure if that's for structural stability or just to keep out moisture and reduce corrosion, or even if I'm remembering it correctly.
EDIT: I know the intertank isn't pressurized so I'm just referring to the LOX and LH2 tanks.
The ET is structurually stable without pressurization. The pressurization inflight is for engine inlet conditions.. The GN2 blanket purge is just for contamination
The LOX tank might be purged with GN2 but I'm pretty sure the LH2 tank is purged with GHe, not GN2. GN2 will freeze when they hit it with LH2. Also, I thought I remember hearing about pressure requirements for wind loading while at the pad, such as if they ride out a storm. I'm not an engineer by any means so don't take it as gospel, just what I remember hearing.
-
#1591
by
tnphysics
on 21 Jan, 2009 01:31
-
What is an ELC?
-
#1592
by
The-Hammer
on 21 Jan, 2009 04:41
-
-
#1593
by
joema
on 25 Jan, 2009 14:40
-
....does anyone have any kind of "list" about where the current black zones are?...
The generalized ascent black zones for pre and post-Challenger missions were posted on a web site (
www.futureshuttle.com -- no longer up).
It was part of the Space Shuttle Development Conference at NASA-Ames on July 29, 1999.
The slides were from Astronaut Charles J. Precourt's presentation, titled "Mission Abort Options".
Unfortunately I didn't copy them. I've tried to get copies through the NASA HQ library, without success.
In general they showed major differences in ascent black zones before and after STS-51L (Challenger). There were also further improvements in recent years.
It's unfortunate these slides aren't available, as this topic is frequently discussed. They graphically illustrate shuttle safety isn't a static thing, but is constantly evolving. The ascent black zones are much smaller now than in past years.
-
#1594
by
psloss
on 25 Jan, 2009 19:27
-
The slides were from Astronaut Charles J. Precourt's presentation, titled "Mission Abort Options".
.
.
.
It's unfortunate these slides aren't available, as this topic is frequently discussed. They graphically illustrate shuttle safety isn't a static thing, but is constantly evolving. The ascent black zones are much smaller now than in past years.
Would suggest scrounging around on the Internet Archive...it's been a while since I checked, but I thought some of the slides (as "published" on the website) were there. I may not be recalling it correctly, but if you're interested, it's probably worth a shot.
Still, as you say, ascent flight techniques and software aren't static and even that conference is almost 10 years old itself.
-
#1595
by
joema
on 25 Jan, 2009 21:16
-
...Would suggest scrounging around on the Internet Archive...it's been a while since I checked, but I thought some of the slides (as "published" on the website) were there...
Thanks, both I and Nasa librarians have already spent much time (w/o success) on this. It's not in the Internet Archive. Some of the slides for some presentations are in the archive, unfortunately the Precourt "abort enhancements" slides are not.
-
#1596
by
usn_skwerl
on 26 Jan, 2009 06:33
-
Why has ATK/Thiokol essentially had a semi-monopoly with NASA for the last 60-some years?
-
#1597
by
Jim
on 26 Jan, 2009 10:11
-
Why has ATK/Thiokol essentially had a semi-monopoly with NASA for the last 60-some years?
Not a monopoly and not 60 years (1972 was the space shuttle decision).
They are the supplier for the SRM. No different than Rocketdyne is the supplier of the SSME
-
#1598
by
usn_skwerl
on 26 Jan, 2009 17:08
-
from what I've gathered, it at least started in 1959, with the CASTOR booster used on Atlas, retrorockets for Mercury and Gemini, SEP motors for Apollo, the motors in the X-1 and -15, the air bags on Spirit and Opportunity, in/on a few other interplanetary space probes, and of course the SRB's for STS and Ares, which is why it caught my attention. If it wasn't a semi-monopoly, they are still definitely an obvious deep-rooted tie to NASA...I'm curious why NASA's gone to them over the years
-
#1599
by
Jim
on 26 Jan, 2009 17:38
-
from what I've gathered, it at least started in 1959,
with the CASTOR booster used on Atlas, retrorockets for Mercury and Gemini, SEP motors for Apollo, the motors in the X-1 and -15, the air bags on Spirit and Opportunity, in/on a few other interplanetary space probes, and of course the SRB's for STS and Ares, which is why it caught my attention. If it wasn't a semi-monopoly, they are still definitely an obvious deep-rooted tie to NASA...I'm curious why NASA's gone to them over the years
There are few suppliers in this area. No different than Electric Boat for Navy subs. You could say the same thing about Rocketdyne and NASA. Your list is not all inclusive, the list by other suppliers is larger. Exclude the SRB's and it would be pretty balanced.
FYI, Castors were first for Thor, and was way before Atlas, and done by the USAF. The castors for Atlas had no NASA involvement.
GEMs for Delta II's, SRMUs for Titan IV, all stages for Pegasus, all by Hercules.
Titan III SRM's by CSD.
Apollo LES by Lockheed. Sep motors by others too
SRB replacements: FWC SRM by Hercules and ASRM by Aerojet
Hercules bought Thoikol and that became ATK
