-
#760
by
kneecaps
on 08 Mar, 2008 22:49
-
10W29 - 8/3/2008 10:11 PM
These refer to connectors, not harnesses. P stands for plug as opposed to J for jack and 83 is for location (Av Bay 3). 80 series are middeck, 30 series are flight deck etc.
Ace! Thanks a lot, that's just the kind of thing I wanted to know, I can't get enough of this 'nuts and bolts' level information! The quantity of documentation to record all this must be staggering.
-
#761
by
mkirk
on 09 Mar, 2008 00:26
-
kneecaps - 8/3/2008 5:49 PM
10W29 - 8/3/2008 10:11 PM
These refer to connectors, not harnesses. P stands for plug as opposed to J for jack and 83 is for location (Av Bay 3). 80 series are middeck, 30 series are flight deck etc.
Ace! Thanks a lot, that's just the kind of thing I wanted to know, I can't get enough of this 'nuts and bolts' level information! The quantity of documentation to record all this must be staggering.
If you have L2 access then I would recommend the EGIL Console Handbook - section 4.3.3 - for a complete rundown on space shuttle orbiter wiring.
Mark Kirkman
-
#762
by
kneecaps
on 09 Mar, 2008 12:50
-
mkirk - 9/3/2008 1:26 AM
If you have L2 access then I would recommend the EGIL Console Handbook - section 4.3.3 - for a complete rundown on space shuttle orbiter wiring.
Mark Kirkman
Thanks Mark! I've had a good read of the EGIL stuff in that document and never noticed that section!!! Brilliant!
Thanks again.
-
#763
by
refsmmat
on 10 Mar, 2008 17:33
-
Are there any flown RSRM sets being refurbished for future flights, or do the minor modifications on 122 and 123 make them obsolete? I have heard of some segments being re-used since way back in the early Eighties, but that news may be out of date.
Additionally, I have noticed hearsay that there is still a flight qualified lightweight external tank kicking around somewhere amongst the inventory of superlightweight tanks. Is this true, and if so, what are its prospects? With this year's surge, ET delivery seems to be based on just-in-time inventory strategy.
-
#764
by
haywoodfloyd
on 10 Mar, 2008 22:53
-
We do I find that link to a live feed from camera 60 I saw a while back?
-
#765
by
Jim
on 10 Mar, 2008 23:56
-
haywoodfloyd - 10/3/2008 7:53 PM
We do I find that link to a live feed from camera 60 I saw a while back?
the feeds get rotated, the camera don't stay the same
-
#766
by
haywoodfloyd
on 11 Mar, 2008 00:00
-
Jim - 10/3/2008 8:56 PM
haywoodfloyd - 10/3/2008 7:53 PM
We do I find that link to a live feed from camera 60 I saw a while back?
the feeds get rotated, the camera don't stay the same
Thanks Jim.
It was actually a RealPlayer stream.
The old address I have is here...
rtsp://163.205.10.22:8080/encoder/cif.rm
-
#767
by
MB123
on 11 Mar, 2008 03:26
-
Are you saying each camera can be viewed seperately via the internet?
-
#768
by
Jim
on 11 Mar, 2008 03:52
-
MB123 - 11/3/2008 12:26 AM
Are you saying each camera can be viewed seperately via the internet?
no, just different cameras are chosen for streaming
-
#769
by
Patriot1776
on 11 Mar, 2008 11:15
-
Something I'm glad to hear from the MCC replays is that NASA has not eliminated the use of the Quindar tones from the Shuttle Air-To-Ground loops. I'm just wondering if they've not replaced the Quindar system because of legacy comm equipment still in use today, or is this a case of 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' meaning the Quindar system has gotten the job done since Gemini (?) and Apollo, so there's no need to change it, even with upgraded communications equipment. Am I right?
-
#770
by
MB123
on 11 Mar, 2008 11:20
-
-
#771
by
DaveS
on 11 Mar, 2008 13:27
-
Back then they didn't lock the elevons in place following ascent, like they do now.
-
#772
by
Jorge
on 11 Mar, 2008 14:26
-
Patriot1776 - 11/3/2008 7:15 AM
Something I'm glad to hear from the MCC replays is that NASA has not eliminated the use of the Quindar tones from the Shuttle Air-To-Ground loops. I'm just wondering if they've not replaced the Quindar system because of legacy comm equipment still in use today, or is this a case of 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' meaning the Quindar system has gotten the job done since Gemini (?) and Apollo, so there's no need to change it, even with upgraded communications equipment. Am I right?
Even though the tones no longer serve their original function, they are a useful cue for the flight control team to know that a conversation is starting on the A/G loops.
-
#773
by
Patriot1776
on 11 Mar, 2008 19:57
-
Hmm...interesting. I do see the point. I'm guessing when they first transitioned from the Quindar-actuated uplink there were complaints soon after from the controllers that they couldn't tell when CAPCOM was talking to them or the astronauts, so they then brought them back purely for the inter-MCC role they now serve.
It also makes me wonder if they use a separate, differently pitched set of tones now that can be heard in both the Shuttle FCR (FCR 3?) and FCR 1 (ISS FCR) for 'Big Loop' STS+ISS communications, so flight controllers can distinguish between inter-vehicular communications and intravehicular communications.
-
#774
by
Susan27
on 11 Mar, 2008 21:13
-
Hi,
could someone please explain in brief words what this "Flash Evaporator System (FES)" is good for at the vehicle and what its task exactly is...?
Thanks!
-
#775
by
Jorge
on 11 Mar, 2008 21:52
-
-
#776
by
Jorge
on 11 Mar, 2008 21:53
-
Patriot1776 - 11/3/2008 3:57 PM
Hmm...interesting. I do see the point. I'm guessing when they first transitioned from the Quindar-actuated uplink there were complaints soon after from the controllers that they couldn't tell when CAPCOM was talking to them or the astronauts, so they then brought them back purely for the inter-MCC role they now serve.
I don't recall there ever being a time when the tones weren't used. I think they just left them in the system rather than removing them in the first place.
It also makes me wonder if they use a separate, differently pitched set of tones now that can be heard in both the Shuttle FCR (FCR 3?) and FCR 1 (ISS FCR) for 'Big Loop' STS+ISS communications, so flight controllers can distinguish between inter-vehicular communications and intravehicular communications.
No.
-
#777
by
Skywalka
on 11 Mar, 2008 22:13
-
Ok since it was killed in the STS-123 Day 2 Thread I'll repost it here.
Why is JLM going up first and not JEM? The answer given was "because JEM is too heavy with all racks installed JLM contains some of JEM's experimental racks".
IMHO this doesn't answer the question. The weight of JEM and JLM added together stays the same. The answer explains why JLM is heavier, not why it is send up first. I guessed that it was because of the OBSS being left with the station but was told that the STS-123 payload was decided to be JLM even before they added the OBSS to that flight.
So what's the real reason? Can they check the functionality of the experimental racks in the JLM so once JEM is up it can be put into service faster (just transfer the racks and off they go doing experiments) or what is the real reason?
I'll be torturing the search function while waiting for an answer :-)
-
#778
by
refsmmat
on 11 Mar, 2008 22:34
-
Which serial number SSME is the one on display at the gantry near the crawler service station on the way to LC39 at Kennedy Space Center?
-
#779
by
Lee Jay
on 11 Mar, 2008 23:00
-
I'm a bit surprised about the FES system issue on STS-123. The FD2 execute package basically says the problem is to be handled by simply using the B system for the rest of the flight. No trouble shooting activities are planned that I can see. Is there another backup if FES B fails (Ammonia boilers, perhaps?) during reentry and landing, thus creating the lack of concern for a failure of a primary system?
