-
#1680
by
joncz
on 27 Mar, 2009 00:01
-
I've seen this asked before, but never saw an answer.
What is the red blob on the shuttle landing track?
-
#1681
by
hygoex
on 27 Mar, 2009 17:49
-
On the Approach and Landing Tests, how did the ALT crews get on board?
-
#1682
by
Jim
on 27 Mar, 2009 18:05
-
cherry picker
-
#1683
by
tva
on 28 Mar, 2009 14:20
-
I wonder why MCC-H and the shuttle crew are using verbal transfer and verbal verification of data while they preparing for deorbit burn.
I would think that a data uplink/uploud is more favourable i 2009.
It is rather timeconsuming.
-
#1684
by
Jim
on 28 Mar, 2009 14:25
-
I wonder why MCC-H and the shuttle crew are using verbal transfer and verbal verification of data while they preparing for deorbit burn.
I would think that a data uplink/uploud is more favourable i 2009.
It is rather timeconsuming.
There is nothing to uplink to. Remember the avionics is from the 70's. The data is manually inputted to the avionics. the orbiter is manual flown vehicle. It is not like an unmanned spacecraft which receives many commands. There are limited commands that the ground can send and none have any to do with piloting the vehicle
-
#1685
by
tva
on 28 Mar, 2009 14:27
-
There is nothing to uplink to. Remember the avionics is from the 70's. The data is manually inputted to the avionics.
The orbiter is manual flown vehicle. It is not like an unmanned spacecraft which receives many commands.
There are limited commands that the ground can send and none have any to do with piloting the vehicle
At least they could mail or fax it
-
#1686
by
kraisee
on 30 Mar, 2009 03:26
-
Can anyone flesh-out the details of the amount of work required on the Orbiter Maneuvering Engines (OME) between each flight?
Ross.
-
#1687
by
Jim
on 30 Mar, 2009 04:22
-
At least they could mail or fax it
Those systems have been shutdown earlier when the PCs are stowed for landing
-
#1688
by
Danny Dot
on 30 Mar, 2009 04:28
-
At least they could mail or fax it
Those systems have been shutdown earlier when the PCs are stowed for landing
John Young showed me a card he made for STS-1 that had landing site info he could GMEM into the GPCs if he needed to land somewhere "unusual". This card should be put in the Smithsonian. I don't think he got management to sign off on the card though.
Danny Deger
-
#1689
by
clegg78
on 30 Mar, 2009 22:12
-
Hey guys, I have what I believe is a simple question.
When the shuttle is stacked in the VAB, is there any access into the shuttle durring that time or do they need to wait to get the whole stack to the pad to have access via the white room to the inside of the shuttle (crew compartment).
-
#1690
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 30 Mar, 2009 22:16
-
Hey guys, I have what I believe is a simple question.
When the shuttle is stacked in the VAB, is there any access into the shuttle durring that time or do they need to wait to get the whole stack to the pad to have access via the white room to the inside of the shuttle (crew compartment).
There is a white room in the VAB that provides access to the Orbiter.
-
#1691
by
elmarko
on 30 Mar, 2009 22:30
-
John Young showed me a card he made for STS-1 that had landing site info he could GMEM into the GPCs if he needed to land somewhere "unusual". This card should be put in the Smithsonian. I don't think he got management to sign off on the card though.
Danny Deger
Wow, got any more info on this at all?
-
#1692
by
Danny Dot
on 30 Mar, 2009 23:46
-
John Young showed me a card he made for STS-1 that had landing site info he could GMEM into the GPCs if he needed to land somewhere "unusual". This card should be put in the Smithsonian. I don't think he got management to sign off on the card though.
Danny Deger
Wow, got any more info on this at all?
I worked as a Guidance and Procedure Officer for Shuttle. In that capacity, Commander Young's capability had been taken over by my position and we could uplink landing sites to the shuttle out of a data base we had in the mission control computers at JSC. Developing that data base was a true success story for NASA. It was done at a very low cost.
Try and contact someone in the JSC public affairs office and see if you can open a contact with the Guidance and Procedures Office. I think that could be done. But don't mention my name. My guess is I am not very popular with NASA management at this time :-)
Danny Deger
-
#1693
by
hyper_snyper
on 01 Apr, 2009 01:44
-
What is the total mass of the shuttle TPS? Counting the various tiles on the underside and the RCC on the wing leading edges, tail leading edge, and the nose. Not counting stuff like thermal blankets.
-
#1694
by
mjcrsmith
on 01 Apr, 2009 14:05
-
Besides spacecraft, one of my other passions is trains. So this photo is a real treat for me.
One can see why the SRB's are the diameter that they are and the need for segmentation. Otherwise they would not fit under overpasses and exceed bridge loads.
However this brings up my question. If the SRB production facilities were at the launch site(s), would there have been advantages / disadvantages to having one piece propellent sections rather than the current method of connecting 4 smaller sections?
I would think that eliminating the need for the field joints would be a plus, but would there be disadvanges such as the handling and refurbishing the SRB's? (i.e. would VAB operations be more difficult, would loading propellent be more difficult, etc.)
Thanks in advance,
Roger
-
#1695
by
Jim
on 01 Apr, 2009 14:47
-
Besides spacecraft, one of my other passions is trains. So this photo is a real treat for me.
One can see why the SRB's are the diameter that they are and the need for segmentation. Otherwise they would not fit under overpasses and exceed bridge loads.
However this brings up my question. If the SRB production facilities were at the launch site(s), would there have been advantages / disadvantages to having one piece propellent sections rather than the current method of connecting 4 smaller sections?
I would think that eliminating the need for the field joints would be a plus, but would there be disadvanges such as the handling and refurbishing the SRB's? (i.e. would VAB operations be more difficult, would loading propellent be more difficult, etc.)
Everything above and
Don't forget a place to test the motors and the large amount of acreage that a motor production facility requires.
Or the larger SRB could be barged in from a coastal facility
-
#1696
by
MKremer
on 01 Apr, 2009 15:24
-
Besides spacecraft, one of my other passions is trains. So this photo is a real treat for me.
One can see why the SRB's are the diameter that they are and the need for segmentation. Otherwise they would not fit under overpasses and exceed bridge loads.
However this brings up my question. If the SRB production facilities were at the launch site(s), would there have been advantages / disadvantages to having one piece propellent sections rather than the current method of connecting 4 smaller sections?
I would think that eliminating the need for the field joints would be a plus, but would there be disadvanges such as the handling and refurbishing the SRB's? (i.e. would VAB operations be more difficult, would loading propellent be more difficult, etc.)
Thanks in advance,
Roger
A few other points...
Each of the segments that are shipped actually consist of 2 factory segments joined together. (The joint is called a 'factory joint', as opposed to the joints when the shipped segments are mated in the VAB, termed a 'field joint'.)
Also, because each mixture of SRB propellant to be cast will have tiny differences in burning characteristics, the procedure is to fill 2 factory cases at once - one for a left solid, and one for a right. That way different pairs of castings can be built up into segments, and then into full SRBs, but still be very similar in total thrust for each side of the Shuttle stack.
-
#1697
by
C5C6
on 02 Apr, 2009 14:26
-
in a RTLS or TAL abort, how does the ET break up?? is there any danger of debris not desintegrating and reaching european or african cities???
-
#1698
by
kch
on 02 Apr, 2009 14:38
-
What is the total mass of the shuttle TPS? Counting the various tiles on the underside and the RCC on the wing leading edges, tail leading edge, and the nose. Not counting stuff like thermal blankets.
Why not the thermal blankets? Remember, the areas now covered by thermal blankets were originally covered with tiles. Don't remember if the substitution was done for weight savings or easier maintenance (or both).
-
#1699
by
joncz
on 02 Apr, 2009 14:43
-
in a RTLS or TAL abort, how does the ET break up?? is there any danger of debris not desintegrating and reaching european or african cities???
In an RTLS, the shuttle/ET is thrusting back toward KSC and the tank is dumped in the western Atlantic.
In TAL, the shuttle reenters and glides to its touchdown. The ET would follow a ballistic trajectory that would put it into the eastern Atlantic.
