-
#1740
by
maicod
on 11 Apr, 2009 08:26
-
before the space shuttle gets launched a couple of narrow vents on the underside of the shuttle shoot out gas or smoke with quite a high pressure. This is seen before the sparks-rain starts that burns off eventual dangerous gas buildup. My question is what are these gas/smoke vents for and what is the material coming out of these vents ? I included a picture to make my question more clear.
-
#1741
by
zeke01
on 11 Apr, 2009 10:26
-
GOX. SSME pumps are cooled and maintained at cryo temps with LO2 before engine start. GOX is dumped at the locations indicated.
zeke
-
#1742
by
Fequalsma
on 11 Apr, 2009 11:54
-
Sure - glad to help out.
F=ma
Ross -
From JSC-26098, page D-84,
RCS FWD MODULE ENGINE INST 869.0 (lbs)
RCS FWD PRESSURIZATION SYSTEM 148.0
RCS FWD PROPELLANT SYSTEM FUEL 265.3
RCS FWD PROPELLANT SYSTEM OXID 248.7
Thank-you for that -- and for the file too.
Ross.
-
#1743
by
maicod
on 11 Apr, 2009 18:24
-
GOX. SSME pumps are cooled and maintained at cryo temps with LO2 before engine start. GOX is dumped at the locations indicated.
zeke
GOX=gassious oxides right ? LO2 is a more precise material name for that ? and what does it mean ? I can't find it on google. Its probably a chemical name like O2
-
#1744
by
psloss
on 11 Apr, 2009 18:33
-
GOX=gassious oxides right ?
Gaseous oxygen.
-
#1745
by
kch
on 11 Apr, 2009 18:38
-
GOX=gassious oxides right ?
Gaseous oxygen.
Similar usage to LOX for liquid oxygen.
-
#1746
by
maicod
on 11 Apr, 2009 18:42
-
GOX=gassious oxides right ?
Gaseous oxygen.
Similar usage to LOX for liquid oxygen.
yeah sorry for my mistake, the fact that i'm from a non-native english-speaking country (The Netherlands) makes understanding certain space shuttle abbreviation terms harder
-
#1747
by
psloss
on 11 Apr, 2009 18:45
-
-
#1748
by
Jim
on 11 Apr, 2009 18:49
-
makes understanding certain space shuttle abbreviation terms harder
It isn't a space shuttle specific term, it is used by other vehicles and programs
-
#1749
by
DaveS
on 11 Apr, 2009 18:53
-
makes understanding certain space shuttle abbreviation terms harder
It isn't a space shuttle specific term, it is used by other vehicles and programs
Yes and chemistry basics. G means gaseous, while L means liquid and S means solid.
So GHe for example means helium in a gaseous state while LHe would be the liquid state of helium.
-
#1750
by
mark147
on 11 Apr, 2009 21:08
-
yeah sorry for my mistake, the fact that i'm from a non-native english-speaking country (The Netherlands) makes understanding certain space shuttle abbreviation terms harder
Turn on the cool abbreviations feature in the forum (under Profile->Look/Layout) - then you'll automatically see what most of the abbreviations means just by waving your mouse over them.
No idea why this isn't just enabled automatically.
Mark
-
#1751
by
shuttlefan
on 11 Apr, 2009 22:27
-
Is there any risk whatsoever of only one SRB igniting at launch, and,yes, I know the whole shuttle is risky, but, I'm just wondering about that.
-
#1752
by
maicod
on 12 Apr, 2009 00:14
-
Is there any risk whatsoever of only one SRB igniting at launch, and,yes, I know the whole shuttle is risky, but, I'm just wondering about that.
wow good question ! I would like to know too ! I suspect its a very dangerous event and possibly a major and deadly disaster since the craft would veer to one side very wildly
-
#1753
by
maicod
on 12 Apr, 2009 00:19
-
Turn on the cool abbreviations feature in the forum (under Profile->Look/Layout) - then you'll automatically see what most of the abbreviations means just by waving your mouse over them.
No idea why this isn't just enabled automatically.
Mark
thanks Mark, I turned it on
-
#1754
by
Danny Dot
on 12 Apr, 2009 02:06
-
Is there any risk whatsoever of only one SRB igniting at launch, and,yes, I know the whole shuttle is risky, but, I'm just wondering about that.
There is a lot of redundancy in the SRB ignition system to prevent this from happening. It would result in a total disaster. The shuttle, the pad, and the crew would all be lost.
Danny Deger
-
#1755
by
Patchouli
on 12 Apr, 2009 02:18
-
Is there any risk whatsoever of only one SRB igniting at launch, and,yes, I know the whole shuttle is risky, but, I'm just wondering about that.
There is a lot of redundancy in the SRB ignition system to prevent this from happening. It would result in a total disaster. The shuttle, the pad, and the crew would all be lost.
Danny Deger
I heard the SRB ignition system is extremely reliable it was one of those pieces of hardware they really put an extra effort in.
I never heard of a single SRB igniting on any vehicle that used multiple SRBs.
-
#1756
by
oxford750
on 12 Apr, 2009 05:54
-
To whom it may concern:
Sorry if this is in the wrong forum as I do not know where to put it.
I know that the shuttle that is going up to the Hubble cannot get to ISS in case of an emergency because the shuttle does not have enough propellant (I don't really understand Oribital Mechanics), I just know that the Hubble is "to far" from ISS.
Is there a graphical drawing somewhere that shows "where" the ISS is in relation to Hubble?
Also how does the shuttle "replace" the payload canister, while maintaining a "clean room" enviroment for the payloads that are inside the PCR?
Thanks
Oxford750
-
#1757
by
Jim
on 12 Apr, 2009 13:10
-
Also how does the shuttle "replace" the payload canister, while maintaining a "clean room" enviroment for the payloads that are inside the PCR?
Thanks
Oxford750
Read the shuttle Q&A thread, it is in there
-
#1758
by
nomadd22
on 12 Apr, 2009 14:09
-
It's not that they're "too far" from each other. They can actually come within a few hundred miles or so of each other on occasion. It's that their orbits are different. Think of it as going in different directions at 15,000 mph. You can't change direction in space like a car or airplane because you don't have the road or the air to push on. You have to use rockets to change orbits, and at that speed it would take huge amounts of fuel to change them that much.
-
#1759
by
Aobrien
on 12 Apr, 2009 14:38
-
I know they wouldn't do this because it would be to expensive but would it be possible for them to launch Atlantis to Hubble and then Launch Endevour to Hubble at the same time with plenty of extra fuel and then while carrying Hubble Atlantis get within grappling rang of the SRMS so the SRMS could grapple the Hubble then the shuttle would release the Hubble then dock to the ISS and then the shuttle could return home and the next logistics flight could bring any other Hubble equipment that was not able to go in the first flight as a side item to the already scheduled MPLM then after the components were installed after the mission by the ISS crew the SRMS would release it into orbit some how? I know this would never in a million years happen but could it be done? Just to think outside the box.
Thanks
