-
#2040
by
sfxtd
on 03 Jun, 2009 19:33
-
-
#2041
by
DaveS
on 03 Jun, 2009 21:59
-
Can someone please freshen up my memory: on which flight did they do an EVA test stow of the orbiter KU band antenna? I remember seeing some video of that particular EVA activity but can't remember which mission it was done on.
-
#2042
by
anik
on 04 Jun, 2009 17:00
-
Can someone please freshen up my memory: on which flight did they do an EVA test stow of the orbiter KU band antenna?
STS 41-G: "In addition, the EVA astronauts positioned the Ku-band antenna successfully for gimbal lock and pinning. Once pinned, the antenna was then redeployed for further use"
STS-49 (EVA-4): "In addition to the ASEM and crew member propulsive device (CPD) evaluation, EVA crew members manually stowed the malfunctioning Ku-band antenna"
-
#2043
by
DaveS
on 04 Jun, 2009 17:13
-
Thanks anik! Hopefully both are in the crew's post-flight presentations!
-
#2044
by
NavySpaceFan
on 05 Jun, 2009 18:58
-
Looking at the post mission report for STS-63, I noticed that Dr. Harris reported, during the airlock repress, that he had a burning sensation in his eyes, and that "brown flecks" of material were found after doffing his helmet. Does anyone have any furhter details on this (i.e. the nature of the brown flecks)? Thanks!
-
#2045
by
zerm
on 06 Jun, 2009 22:29
-
Been looking for this but cannot find the answer- hope someone here can help.
Which Apollo LUTs were cust down and made into shuttle FSS and which went to which LC39 complex?
-
#2046
by
padrat
on 07 Jun, 2009 01:28
-
Only one that I know of is the LUT from ML 1 was the one that sat in the boneyard by HQ for all those years before it was scapped a few years ago.
-
#2047
by
zerm
on 07 Jun, 2009 02:17
-
I should have known that (DUH! on my part), so LUT 2 and 3 were adapted to the LC39s... now all I need to know is which one went to which pad.
-
#2048
by
DaveS
on 07 Jun, 2009 08:05
-
LUT 3: Pad A FSS
LUT 2: Pad B FSS
ML 3: MLP-1
ML 2: MLP-2
ML 1: MLP-3
-
#2049
by
TJL
on 07 Jun, 2009 13:54
-
Is SSME # 2060 a brand new (unflown) main engine?
It's listed as one of the 3 that will be on "127".
My (Pratt & Whitney) chart of space shuttle main engines stops at # 2059.
Thank you.
Tom
-
#2050
by
zerm
on 07 Jun, 2009 17:25
-
LUT 3: Pad A FSS
LUT 2: Pad B FSS
ML 3: MLP-1
ML 2: MLP-2
ML 1: MLP-3
Thanks very much! Good trivia to replace some important data stored in my brain.
-
#2051
by
Mach25
on 08 Jun, 2009 18:53
-
Is SSME # 2060 a brand new (unflown) main engine?
It's listed as one of the 3 that will be on "127".
My (Pratt & Whitney) chart of space shuttle main engines stops at # 2059.
Thank you.
Tom
It is my understanding that STS-127 will be the first flight of that SSME (#2060). I believe the other two engines have flown 8 or 9 times each.
-
#2052
by
TJL
on 08 Jun, 2009 20:52
-
Is SSME # 2060 a brand new (unflown) main engine?
It's listed as one of the 3 that will be on "127".
My (Pratt & Whitney) chart of space shuttle main engines stops at # 2059.
Thank you.
Tom
It is my understanding that STS-127 will be the first flight of that SSME (#2060). I believe the other two engines have flown 8 or 9 times each.
Thanks, Mach25!
-
#2053
by
usn_skwerl
on 10 Jun, 2009 00:38
-
not trying to be like a certain KSC reporter, but a thought crossed my mind. Is there a contingency if the vertical stabilizer separates from the orbiter during launch?
-
#2054
by
Jim
on 10 Jun, 2009 01:40
-
not trying to be like a certain KSC reporter, but a thought crossed my mind. Is there a contingency if the vertical stabilizer separates from the orbiter during launch?
There wasn't until after Columbia. It is not a viable problem to plan for. NASA only plans for problems where the crew can be saved.
-
#2055
by
MKremer
on 10 Jun, 2009 07:46
-
not trying to be like a certain KSC reporter, but a thought crossed my mind. Is there a contingency if the vertical stabilizer separates from the orbiter during launch?
That's a question along the lines of other very remote ascent 'what if???'s Like...
- what if all the elevons fell off?
- what if the payload doors suddenly opened?
- what if one or two engines fell off?
- what if the commander had a heart attack during ascent?
- etc., etc....
In other words, it's an incredibly improbable event; so much so that's it's almost silly to ask those types of questions, IMO.
-
#2056
by
Mach25
on 10 Jun, 2009 16:14
-
not trying to be like a certain KSC reporter, but a thought crossed my mind. Is there a contingency if the vertical stabilizer separates from the orbiter during launch?
Despite the remote possibility, I don't think it's a silly question.
To my knowledge, there's no specific procedure for the crew to work if the tail comes off. In fact, it may take Mission Control longer than you'd think to realize it was physically missing. Folks in the flight control room are trained not to watch the video feeds because they are out sync with the data on their screens, among other reasons. It's entirely possible that the ascent might continue all the way to orbit. In that case, they would go ahead and rendezvous with the ISS, probably complete their mission and remain there (CSCS) until a rescue flight could be launched.
If the damage was noticed on ascent, it's possible that an abort would be declared. But due to the resulting degradation of control authority, I don't think we would try to land like that. The most likely outcome would be a bailout over the Atlantic. I think the autopilot is robust enough to control the vehicle in such a case.
-
#2057
by
DMeader
on 10 Jun, 2009 18:53
-
I would think mission control would quickly start getting alarms from actuators, sensors, etc in the (missing) vertical stabilizer. Also other critical systems in that area, and I wonder if the compromised structure might lead to breakup in short order.
Does the stab play a major part in ascent wrt to stability/control of the vehicle? They are out of the thick part of the atmosphere where aerosurfaces would be effective, fairly quickly.
-
#2058
by
Mach25
on 10 Jun, 2009 19:22
-
I would think mission control would quickly start getting alarms from actuators, sensors, etc in the (missing) vertical stabilizer.
They absolutely would get such indications. But given the probability of such a failure, it is more likely that these signals would initially be interpreted as an instrumentation problem rather than a physical loss of hardware.
These folks aren't watching the video feed on TV, which would be the most obvious indicator in this case.
-
#2059
by
hygoex
on 11 Jun, 2009 09:50
-
If there were to be a TAL abort, are there NASA TV cameras stationed at the abort sites, just in case?