-
#1780
by
MKremer
on 14 Apr, 2009 05:33
-
Ya but Hubble no longer can fit into the payload bay. Next question: What will they do about not having a RPM for this mission as the Hubble is not the ISS? 
Hubble could still fit by removing the solar panels. They might even fit as well by refolding them to mount on the forward payload walls for return. It's more valuable remaining in orbit doing as much science as possible until everything croaks completely, though.
-
#1781
by
Jim
on 14 Apr, 2009 11:58
-
Hubble could still fit by removing the solar panels. They might even fit as well by refolding them to mount on the forward payload walls for return. It's more valuable remaining in orbit doing as much science as possible until everything croaks completely, though.
There are other things that would need to be removed, like a radiator for a cryocooler
-
#1782
by
Aobrien
on 14 Apr, 2009 12:23
-
That is just what I was saying. Even if we wanted to bring Hubble down it wouldn't be easy and it wouldn't have a shuttle to go back up on. There is nothing much past the servicing mission that can be done with the Hubble.
-
#1783
by
LMSenus
on 14 Apr, 2009 13:07
-
And now for something completely non-Hubble
This morning, we noticed the particularly foul weather heading across central Florida, complete with tornado warnings including the KSC area. That got us thinking: how much protection does the RSS offer a shuttle stack on the pad during, say, golf-ball-sized hail or possible tornado conditions (I'm not talking about a direct hit, but a close pass)? It's not like you can move the thing in a hurry back to the VAB...
-
#1784
by
Jim
on 14 Apr, 2009 13:28
-
And now for something completely non-Hubble
This morning, we noticed the particularly foul weather heading across central Florida, complete with tornado warnings including the KSC area. That got us thinking: how much protection does the RSS offer a shuttle stack on the pad during, say, golf-ball-sized hail or possible tornado conditions (I'm not talking about a direct hit, but a close pass)? It's not like you can move the thing in a hurry back to the VAB...
The top and back side of ET is exposed and same goes for the SRB's
-
#1785
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 14 Apr, 2009 13:32
-
And just to add on to what Jim said, ET-124 was damaged by hail and the STS-117 stack had to roll back to the VAB to repair the foam:
-
#1786
by
psloss
on 14 Apr, 2009 13:39
-
That is just what I was saying. Even if we wanted to bring Hubble down it wouldn't be easy and it wouldn't have a shuttle to go back up on. There is nothing much past the servicing mission that can be done with the Hubble.
Feasibility isn't necessarily the primary driver. Detaching solar arrays and other equipment has been done on past servicing missions. I'm not sure those tasks would be judged to be "harder" than some of the more intricate ones performed on the last servicing mission or the upcoming one.
(Prior to STS-107, there was a mission manifested to return Hubble.)
Money (the availability of it) is more likely a larger factor, as is balancing the risks vs. the return. The return of an additional servicing mission (for example) might be judged to be worth more than a return mission.
-
#1787
by
psloss
on 14 Apr, 2009 13:40
-
And just to add on to what Jim said, ET-124 was damaged by hail and the STS-117 stack had to roll back to the VAB to repair the foam:
As was the STS-96 shuttle.
-
#1788
by
LMSenus
on 14 Apr, 2009 15:35
-
And just to add on to what Jim said, ET-124 was damaged by hail and the STS-117 stack had to roll back to the VAB to repair the foam:
As was the STS-96 shuttle.
Thank you all for the response. I can certainly understand the damage to the ET foam. I had wondered about the risk of damage to the tiles on the shuttle itself. I suppose it's sufficiently sheltered to prevent hail damage.
-
#1789
by
psloss
on 14 Apr, 2009 18:02
-
Thank you all for the response. I can certainly understand the damage to the ET foam. I had wondered about the risk of damage to the tiles on the shuttle itself. I suppose it's sufficiently sheltered to prevent hail damage.
A fairly small area on left side of the orbiter took some hits in the STS-117 case; the damage was much less severe than the ET damage and was repaired much more quickly.
-
#1790
by
maicod
on 14 Apr, 2009 18:34
-
And just to add on to what Jim said, ET-124 was damaged by hail and the STS-117 stack had to roll back to the VAB to repair the foam:
reply on the picture. why do they use brownish orangish foam ? does it have to look fancy and sortof match the ET color ?
-
#1791
by
Jim
on 14 Apr, 2009 18:44
-
The ET foam changes color (darkens) as it reacts to UV light
-
#1792
by
MarsMethanogen
on 15 Apr, 2009 15:10
-
I've done a search on this Forum for "OMS Contractor" and while there were several hits, none appeared to have the answer I'm looking for. My question is, who was the contractor for the Orbiter's OMS? I know that the prime contractor was NA Rockwell, but I also know that much of the Orbiter's components were subcontracted out to various other companys in the industry at the time of design and manufacturing. I don't recall coming across the one that performed the work on the OMS. Was it Rocketdyne? Was that contractor the same contractor that developed the Apollo SM engine, in as much as both this and the OMS use hypergolic propellants? Finally, if maintenance is needed on the OMS at this point in the program, who performs the work? Is it USA, drawing upon the expertise and resources of this original contractor? Thanks.
-
#1793
by
Jorge
on 15 Apr, 2009 15:13
-
I've done a search on this Forum for "OMS Contractor" and while there were several hits, none appeared to have the answer I'm looking for. My question is, who was the contractor for the Orbiter's OMS?
Aerojet.
-
#1794
by
MarsMethanogen
on 15 Apr, 2009 15:22
-
I've done a search on this Forum for "OMS Contractor" and while there were several hits, none appeared to have the answer I'm looking for. My question is, who was the contractor for the Orbiter's OMS?
Aerojet.
Thank you. I recall that they were also a contractor for either the Apollo LM AS or DS engine, I can't remember which. Were they the contractor for the Apollo SM engine?
-
#1795
by
MarsMethanogen
on 15 Apr, 2009 16:31
-
I've done a search on this Forum for "OMS Contractor" and while there were several hits, none appeared to have the answer I'm looking for. My question is, who was the contractor for the Orbiter's OMS?
Aerojet.
Thank you. I recall that they were also a contractor for either the Apollo LM AS or DS engine, I can't remember which. Were they the contractor for the Apollo SM engine?
I found answers to all my questions, but since they're off topic I'll close out this line of questioning.
-
#1796
by
Jim
on 15 Apr, 2009 16:50
-
Thank you. I recall that they were also a contractor for either the Apollo LM AS or DS engine, I can't remember which.
neither, AS was Bell/Rocketdyne and DS was TRW
-
#1797
by
MarsMethanogen
on 15 Apr, 2009 16:54
-
Thank you. I recall that they were also a contractor for either the Apollo LM AS or DS engine, I can't remember which.
neither, AS was Bell/Rocketdyne and DS was TRW
Understood, but if I recall when I read "Chariots for Apollo", they were having so much trouble in the development of one of these engines (with these contractors), that they actually went to a third contractor to initiate the devlopment of a second engine. As I remember, this was unheard of, but the deadline was a national priority, and NASA was awash in money at that time. I'll see if I can dig that up when I get home, but again, I fully recognize that this is off topic.
-
#1798
by
Jim
on 15 Apr, 2009 17:20
-
Bell was having trouble and Rocketdyne was brought in to help
-
#1799
by
HIPAR
on 18 Apr, 2009 02:42
-
I'm curious how a rescue mission will be performed if the shuttle servicing the Hubble telescope cannot return home:
a) How will the crew transfer between shuttles?
b) Will there be enough seating positions in the rescue shuttle to accommodate everyone? Seven plus two?
c) How will the disabled shuttle be safely deorbited?
d) How much training time is devoted to this?
--- CHAS
