-
#380
by
LSainsbury
on 05 Jan, 2008 14:03
-
Thanks DaveS for the info - thought it was a bit strange!
-
#381
by
brahmanknight
on 11 Jan, 2008 21:42
-
Why was it decided to do "All up" testing of the shuttle instead of flying unmanned first? Why didn't it have the capability to fly unmanned?
-
#382
by
Jim
on 11 Jan, 2008 21:48
-
brahmanknight - 11/1/2008 5:42 PM
Why was it decided to do "All up" testing of the shuttle instead of flying unmanned first? Why didn't it have the capability to fly unmanned?
There wasn't the computing power and also the astronauts were part of the redundancy scheme
-
#383
by
kimmern123
on 11 Jan, 2008 21:48
-
brahmanknight - 11/1/2008 11:42 PM
Why was it decided to do "All up" testing of the shuttle instead of flying unmanned first? Why didn't it have the capability to fly unmanned?
Because the shuttle can't land by itself (It can now, but couldn't back in the 80's). It needed someone to lower the gear among other things (I think there's more, but I don't remember right now)
-
#384
by
Zpoxy
on 14 Jan, 2008 02:20
-
DaveS - 5/1/2008 8:25 AM
LSainsbury - 5/1/2008 1:53 PM
Not sure if this has been asked already but here goes...
I'm reading a book at the moment which says there was a hydrogen explosion at the launch of STS1 which bent an aerolin on the orbiter - is that true?
Not the slightest. And it's elevon, a combination of elevator and aileron. What happened was that due to insufficient sound suppression of the SRBs, some of acustical shockwaves reflected off the flame deflector and impacted the orbiter nearly damaging the bodyflap hydraulic fluid lines.
There was some damage caused by the over-pressure wave. An RCS Oxidizer tank support strut in the FRCS buckled at liftoff. It wasn't discoverd until well after the flight when the FRCS was returned to the HMF for post flight checkout and servicing.
-
#385
by
Justin Space
on 14 Jan, 2008 07:26
-
Zpoxy - 13/1/2008 9:20 PM
There was some damage caused by the over-pressure wave. An RCS Oxidizer tank support strut in the FRCS buckled at liftoff. It wasn't discoverd until well after the flight when the FRCS was returned to the HMF for post flight checkout and servicing.
Wow, did not know that!
-
#386
by
Jim
on 14 Jan, 2008 11:51
-
Zpoxy - 13/1/2008 10:20 PM
There was some damage caused by the over-pressure wave. An RCS Oxidizer tank support strut in the FRCS buckled at liftoff. It wasn't discoverd until well after the flight when the FRCS was returned to the HMF for post flight checkout and servicing.
Forward RCS? The overpressure effects were on the aft of the orbiter. Please provide documentation.
-
#387
by
psloss
on 14 Jan, 2008 12:37
-
Jim - 14/1/2008 7:51 AM
Zpoxy - 13/1/2008 10:20 PM
There was some damage caused by the over-pressure wave. An RCS Oxidizer tank support strut in the FRCS buckled at liftoff. It wasn't discoverd until well after the flight when the FRCS was returned to the HMF for post flight checkout and servicing.
Forward RCS? The overpressure effects were on the aft of the orbiter. Please provide documentation.
It's noted in the
mission report posted online.
The postflight inspection revealed the forward RCS oxidizer tank Z strut was buckled. Review of the flight data indicated that the lift-off dynamic response was aggravated by the SRB ignition overpressure, and this condition was the probably cause of failure.
-
#388
by
haywoodfloyd
on 14 Jan, 2008 13:09
-
With all this talk of soldering the connector wires for the ECO sensors, can someone tell me what the mechanism is for disconnecting/cutting the wires during ET SEP?
Thanks.
-
#389
by
Jim
on 14 Jan, 2008 13:29
-
haywoodfloyd - 14/1/2008 9:09 AM
With all this talk of soldering the connector wires for the ECO sensors, can someone tell me what the mechanism is for disconnecting/cutting the wires during ET SEP?
Thanks.
It is in a umbilical (plug) at the orbiter. The ECO sensors are just one of many electrical interfaces that go between the ET and Orbiter. Signals and commands pass from the orbiter and go to and thru the ET to the SRB's. There are many electrical umbilicals in the orbiter ET disconnect.
-
#390
by
haywoodfloyd
on 14 Jan, 2008 18:19
-
Jim - 14/1/2008 9:29 AM
haywoodfloyd - 14/1/2008 9:09 AM
With all this talk of soldering the connector wires for the ECO sensors, can someone tell me what the mechanism is for disconnecting/cutting the wires during ET SEP?
Thanks.
It is in a umbilical (plug) at the orbiter. The ECO sensors are just one of many electrical interfaces that go between the ET and Orbiter. Signals and commands pass from the orbiter and go to and thru the ET to the SRB's. There are many electrical umbilicals in the orbiter ET disconnect.
Many thanks.
-
#391
by
DMeader
on 15 Jan, 2008 00:31
-
Jim - 14/1/2008 9:29 AM
It is in a umbilical (plug) at the orbiter. The ECO sensors are just one of many electrical interfaces that go between the ET and Orbiter. Signals and commands pass from the orbiter and go to and thru the ET to the SRB's. There are many electrical umbilicals in the orbiter ET disconnect.
I'm a little hazy on the exact mechanics here. Are we talking simple mechanical connections (plug/socket) that just pull apart upon separation, or are there guillotines that fire to actually sever wires?
Also, this talk about "soldering pins".... are they soldering the joint where a pin had been crimped to the end of a wire, or are they soldering the connection where each pin plugged into its opposite member in a plug/socket?
-
#392
by
Jim
on 15 Jan, 2008 00:37
-
DMeader - 14/1/2008 8:31 PM
I'm a little hazy on the exact mechanics here. Are we talking simple mechanical connections (plug/socket) that just pull apart upon separation, or are there guillotines that fire to actually sever wires?
plug/sockets. Reminder the orbiter half is reusable
-
#393
by
NASA_Twix_JSC
on 15 Jan, 2008 02:22
-
DMeader - 14/1/2008 7:31 PM
Jim - 14/1/2008 9:29 AM
It is in a umbilical (plug) at the orbiter. The ECO sensors are just one of many electrical interfaces that go between the ET and Orbiter. Signals and commands pass from the orbiter and go to and thru the ET to the SRB's. There are many electrical umbilicals in the orbiter ET disconnect.
I'm a little hazy on the exact mechanics here. Are we talking simple mechanical connections (plug/socket) that just pull apart upon separation, or are there guillotines that fire to actually sever wires?
Also, this talk about "soldering pins".... are they soldering the joint where a pin had been crimped to the end of a wire, or are they soldering the connection where each pin plugged into its opposite member in a plug/socket?
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5330
-
#394
by
mkirk
on 15 Jan, 2008 19:04
-
pad rat - 15/1/2008 9:10 AM
See attached. As Jim said, the connectors simply plug together and are held in positive connection by spring pressure. At ET sep, the connectors simply pull away from each other.
Just to add to that; the two umbilical plates (the oval shapes in the two images) themselves retract a couple of inches into the ET Umbilical Wells. This occurs about 1.7 seconds prior to physical separation of the Orbiter and ET.
Mark Kirkman
-
#395
by
DMeader
on 15 Jan, 2008 19:18
-
Thanks all....good information and good pics.
-
#396
by
Danny Dot
on 15 Jan, 2008 22:55
-
psloss - 14/1/2008 7:37 AM
Jim - 14/1/2008 7:51 AM
Zpoxy - 13/1/2008 10:20 PM
There was some damage caused by the over-pressure wave. An RCS Oxidizer tank support strut in the FRCS buckled at liftoff. It wasn't discoverd until well after the flight when the FRCS was returned to the HMF for post flight checkout and servicing.
Forward RCS? The overpressure effects were on the aft of the orbiter. Please provide documentation.
It's noted in the mission report posted online.
The postflight inspection revealed the forward RCS oxidizer tank Z strut was buckled. Review of the flight data indicated that the lift-off dynamic response was aggravated by the SRB ignition overpressure, and this condition was the probably cause of failure.
There were several near misses on STS-1. Not the way you want to flight test a rocket and a winged entry vehicle. Unmanned is the way to test a new design.
Danny Deger
-
#397
by
Danny Dot
on 15 Jan, 2008 22:58
-
Jim - 29/12/2007 5:13 PM
kimmern123 - 29/12/2007 4:46 PM
Why wasn't Columbia delivered with the HUD installed? Was it considered unnecessary for ensuring a safe flight and therefore they could launch her earlier than if she waited for the HUD to get installed?
Also a follow up, how did the CDRs of Columbia on her first flight navigate when they didn't have the HUD? I guess they used the instruments on the flight deck, but I'd think it would be a distraction for the CDR to constantly check all the gauges while simultaneously flying a brick towards a safe landing?
The orbiters were designed without HUDs. HUDs were not commonplace when the shuttle was first designed. The HUDs were a modification added later in the program.
HUDs are not a necessity for piloting an aircraft. The CDR's flew the Orbiters like every other aircraft without HUDs, which includes other high speed aircraft like the X-15, X-24, HL-10, M2F3 etc.
I have been told a no HUD landing to a Navy pilot is an emergency procedure :-)
Danny Deger
P.S. I flew in the Air Force.
-
#398
by
Danny Dot
on 15 Jan, 2008 23:06
-
kimmern123 - 30/12/2007 6:23 PM
Why does the optimal touchdown point down the runway change from flight to flight and what influences the decision of where the orbiter idealistically should touch down?
Headwind is the biggest driver to touchdown point. As headwinds increase, the predicted point moves closer to the runway threshold. When it gets too close (1,500 feet???), close in aimpoint is selected which moves the touchdown point about 1,000 feet down the runway.
Danny Deger
-
#399
by
Danny Dot
on 15 Jan, 2008 23:10
-
mkirk - 22/12/2007 9:53 AM
Susan27 - 21/12/2007 4:57 AM
Hi,
When watching (RWY 24?) final approaches at EDW AFB I recognized a strange black "object" (looking a bit like a triangle on the desert-ground) located directly between the PAPI lights (on the extended centerline) in front of the RWY. You can see the same object I think at White Sands...
Do you know what this object exatcly is? I assume it must have something to do with the PAPI approach system or even with the MLS-antennas(?)...but I am very unsure...
Do you know what that is...?
Thanks in advance!
Kind regards
These are the visual aim points. The triangle is located at the close in aim point (6500 feet from the runway) and the rectangle is at the nominal aim point (7500 feet from the runway). They are used primarily on the lackbed runways such as White Sands and Edwards. The concrete runways and KSC do not have them, and of the only TAL site to have them was Ben Guerir.
Mark Kirkman
Are you sure about this? My memory tells me all the runways with MLS also have aimpoints.
Danny Deger