-
#1640
by
Antares
on 14 Mar, 2009 17:46
-
Also, these vent/flare stacks are not unique to rocket launch pads. Chemical plants around the world use them too since seals are not 100% effective in those applications either. Boil-off in chemical plants is not an issue since it's pure "product" which they want to capture and recondition for sale. These plants often have GOX injection into the flares as well to ensure complete combustion and limit CO, soot and NOx emissions.
-
#1641
by
MikeMi.
on 15 Mar, 2009 14:52
-
-
#1642
by
psloss
on 15 Mar, 2009 14:59
-
-
#1643
by
MKremer
on 15 Mar, 2009 15:04
-
-
#1644
by
Lee Jay
on 15 Mar, 2009 15:42
-
If STS-125 can do 5 back-to-back-to-back EVAs, why can't 119 do any, given the shortened docked mission?
-
#1645
by
rdale
on 15 Mar, 2009 15:43
-
Because they don't need to...
-
#1646
by
Lee Jay
on 15 Mar, 2009 15:44
-
Because they don't need to...
Okay, that's kind of what I figured. Can I infer from your answer than they *could* if it were needed?
-
#1647
by
rdale
on 15 Mar, 2009 15:46
-
As far as I know, I've not seen anything that indicated it cannot be done from a physical standpoint.
-
#1648
by
psloss
on 15 Mar, 2009 15:47
-
If STS-125 can do 5 back-to-back-to-back EVAs, why can't 119 do any, given the shortened docked mission?
Not set up the same way as HST servicing missions, or some of the earlier ISS assembly missions. In those cases, they have separate EVA teams, so no EV crewmember is going out on back-to-back flight days. This mission had EV-1 and EV-3 planned for back-to-back EVAs, though on every other flight day...
-
#1649
by
Lee Jay
on 15 Mar, 2009 15:50
-
Ah...so you'd have to plan from the beginning to alternate crew members in the suits if you wanted to go back-to-back (baring emergencies). Makes sense. Thanks for pointing that out!
-
#1650
by
psloss
on 15 Mar, 2009 15:56
-
Ah...so you'd have to plan from the beginning to alternate crew members in the suits if you wanted to go back-to-back (baring emergencies). Makes sense. Thanks for point that out!
Probably as much of an EV crew workload issue than a suit resources issue. (Pretty sure they have the pieces to make up at least three whole suits on HST missions, if not four.) On HST missions in the past (and likely the upcoming one and other missions), the crews are highly cross-trained, so it's not a question of "can't" but certainly undesirable to have someone go outside for up to eight hours on one day and then do it again the next day.
-
#1651
by
MikeMi.
on 15 Mar, 2009 22:00
-
Hi,
have a question - if u watch nasa tv u could saw few moments ago that there happend overflow from water tower, it took place, like Chris wrote cause they wanted to be sure of bein this tower ready ya?
And basic one - why they use water tower? Better pressure?
It would be easier to just pump this water if needed...
thx in advance for answers!
-
#1652
by
Jim
on 15 Mar, 2009 22:16
-
And basic one - why they use water tower? Better pressure?
It would be easier to just pump this water if needed...
Flowrate and simplicity (it is easier). smaller pumps can take all the time needed to full it but by gravity it empties in less than 30 seconds. It would take huge pumps for this flow rate
-
#1653
by
MKremer
on 15 Mar, 2009 22:23
-
Hi,
have a question - if u watch nasa tv u could saw few moments ago that there happend overflow from water tower, it took place, like Chris wrote cause they wanted to be sure of bein this tower ready ya?
And basic one - why they use water tower? Better pressure?
It would be easier to just pump this water if needed...
thx in advance for answers!
What Jim said. Also, see here:
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/stsover-prep.html#stsover-sound
-
#1654
by
oxford750
on 16 Mar, 2009 04:06
-
To whom it may concern:
I hope these questions are in the right section of the forum.
1) How does the crew that sits on the flight deck for launch get there as I think the ladder to get to the flight deck is now the "roof" as the shuttle is now vertical?
2) I have seen the shuttle landing on infared cameras (it was a night landing) and it looked great. My question is, is their a launch of the shuttle captured on infared?
Thanks
Oxford750
-
#1655
by
Jim
on 16 Mar, 2009 10:41
-
To whom it may concern:
I hope these questions are in the right section of the forum.
1) How does the crew that sits on the flight deck for launch get there as I think the ladder to get to the flight deck is now the "roof" as the shuttle is now vertical?
2) I have seen the shuttle landing on infared cameras (it was a night landing) and it looked great. My question is, is their a launch of the shuttle captured on infared?
Thanks
Oxford750
1. this is answered in the shuttle Q&A thread. The crew walks on the aft panels of middeck (specifically the WCS) and flight deck. The CDR and PLT use the MS seats to climb into theirs.
The ladder is not the "roof", it faces the orbiter's side
2. SRB's are too bright for the cameras.
-
#1656
by
AnalogMan
on 16 Mar, 2009 13:18
-
2) I have seen the shuttle landing on infared cameras (it was a night landing) and it looked great. My question is, is their a launch of the shuttle captured on infared?
Starting with STS-126 infrared cameras have been used to monitor the SRB flame trench and liftoff debris at launch - this followed after the damage caused to the pad during STS-124 launch (lots of thermal bricks liberated from the flame trench walls).
These IR cameras are fixed and do not track the vehicle, and are located in the three positions around the pad shown in the following photograph.
-
#1657
by
NavySpaceFan
on 16 Mar, 2009 17:48
-
Just read Chris's articles about the late release of the Tyvek RCS covers, and I was wondering how thick they are? Are they like the Tyvek housewrap you see on newer homes?
ETA: What is the electrical configuration of the shuttle? Current? Voltage? Alternating or Direct Current? Etc.
-
#1658
by
AnalogMan
on 16 Mar, 2009 19:29
-
Just read Chris's articles about the late release of the Tyvek RCS covers, and I was wondering how thick they are? Are they like the Tyvek housewrap you see on newer homes?
ETA: What is the electrical configuration of the shuttle? Current? Voltage? Alternating or Direct Current? Etc.
Tyvek used for the RCS covers is nominally 0.003" to 0.010" for a single ply, but due to problems with tearing they now select for covers with at least 0.007" thickness in those zones prone to tearing. Reinforced areas use three plys together. I think the total weight of a cover is about 30 grams, but I sure someone will be able to correct me if I'm wrong. I don't know how thick building grade Tyvek is.
The orbiter electrical system is based on 28V DC power, generated by Power Converter Assemblies from the fuel cells.
Where payloads are destined for ISS and need to be powered during flight (for keep-alive reasons, such heating of critical components) and which need to be compatible with ISS voltages, then the orbiter can be fitted with DC-DC converter units (Auxilliary Power Converter Units, APCUs) that provide the nominal 123V DC required by the payload.
-
#1659
by
Jim
on 16 Mar, 2009 19:40
-
ETA: What is the electrical configuration of the shuttle? Current? Voltage? Alternating or Direct Current? Etc.
28 VDC*, with some inverters supplying 115 VAC 400 Hz to certain boxes
The standard for spacecraft