-
#880
by
rdale
on 14 Apr, 2008 14:00
-
-
#881
by
hmh33
on 16 Apr, 2008 05:45
-
It's partly to provide thrust but mostly to reduce mass by getting rid of the OMS propellant.
-
#882
by
elmarko
on 16 Apr, 2008 06:41
-
hmh33 - 16/4/2008 6:45 AM
It's partly to provide thrust but mostly to reduce mass by getting rid of the OMS propellant.
I'm sure I asked this months ago, but can't remember if I got an answer.
Why bother including the propellant in the tanks, then? Is there a significant amount of thrust provided to warrant including it?
-
#883
by
Bejowawo
on 16 Apr, 2008 07:57
-
hmh33 - 16/4/2008 7:45 AM
It's partly to provide thrust but mostly to reduce mass by getting rid of the OMS propellant.
Just as a follow up: why would they load up that much OMS propellant into the tanks just to get rid of it in the very beginning of the mission. IMHO it sounds like bit of waste of payload then.
Anybody who can clarify on that topic? Thanks!
-
#884
by
Thorny
on 16 Apr, 2008 13:18
-
Bejowawo - 16/4/2008 2:57 AM
Just as a follow up: why would they load up that much OMS propellant into the tanks just to get rid of it in the very beginning of the mission. IMHO it sounds like bit of waste of payload then.
The OMS prop provides more thrust than it weighs, so they gain a little extra payload by loading the tanks full and firing the OMS to burn back down to the mission's prop requirement level. Not much, but every pound helps.
-
#885
by
mkirk
on 16 Apr, 2008 16:57
-
bump for Thorny's missing post; thread may be getting too long again.
-
#886
by
elmarko
on 16 Apr, 2008 17:17
-
Fair enough, I guessed it'd probably be that. Otherwise, what would be the point?
-
#887
by
cabbage
on 17 Apr, 2008 23:00
-
Mike Mullane writes about it in Riding Rockets (ch 27) as he had battles with John Young about it (Young was set against pre-MECO OMS burns) - the initial suggestion was to lessen the probability of the ET landing on Africa during an abort but the analysis suggested that it improved performance in nominal cases as well.
-
#888
by
elmarko
on 18 Apr, 2008 16:29
-
My copy of Riding Rockets is at my grandparents house, so remind me again why John Young was against the idea?
-
#889
by
Polaris
on 18 Apr, 2008 19:36
-
Does anyone know what they're assembling on this SLP here in the SSPF? It's likely we'll be seeing this thing for months (or longer) so I'd love to know what I'm looking at.
(Sorry if this is posted above...I'm trying not to wade through 61 pages of postings!)
Peter
-
#890
by
DaveS
on 18 Apr, 2008 20:00
-
Polaris - 18/4/2008 9:36 PM
Does anyone know what they're assembling on this SLP here in the SSPF? It's likely we'll be seeing this thing for months (or longer) so I'd love to know what I'm looking at.
(Sorry if this is posted above...I'm trying not to wade through 61 pages of postings!)
Peter
Nothing. It was SLP that held Dextre. It's probably undergoing deconfiguration from STS-123/1JA.
-
#891
by
Jorge
on 18 Apr, 2008 21:22
-
Gary - 18/4/2008 3:14 PM
elmarko - 18/4/2008 5:29 PM
My copy of Riding Rockets is at my grandparents house, so remind me again why John Young was against the idea?
Page 234 - John Young basically didn't like the idea of using propellant that might be useful later in the mission. Doesn't say much more than that.
Mullane left NASA a *long* time before OMS Assist came around and I believe the scenario he describes in his book was different than OMS Assist. With OMS assist, you're topping off the tanks above what is required for the mission, in order to squeeze in a little more payload. It's not prop "that might be useful later" because it's prop you wouldn't have loaded in the first place if not for OMS assist. If I run into John I'll ask him.
-
#892
by
hyper_snyper
on 20 Apr, 2008 21:24
-
Question about post-landing ops. After the shuttle lands and the guys with SCAPE suits come out to check if it's leaking hypergol fumes. Where could it be leaking hypergols from? RCS/OMS or APUs or both?
-
#893
by
Jim
on 20 Apr, 2008 21:36
-
both and ammonia
-
#894
by
pr1268
on 21 Apr, 2008 21:01
-
Question about OV-101 (Enterprise) in launch config at Vandenberg: I stumbled across
this picture (at Wikipedia, obviously), and I was curious: Why did NASA bolt Enterprise to an orange ET and SRBs? I was under the impression Enterprise wouldn't actually ever be launched into orbit...
Never mind, I just found the answer (also on the Wiki page): Fit-testing the SLC-6 launch pad. Any others' comments about the cool-looking bright red conning tower? What does "fit-testing" actually entail?
The mountains in the background of that photo look interesting--definitely not Florida!
Thanks!
-
#895
by
DaveS
on 21 Apr, 2008 21:30
-
pr1268 - 21/4/2008 11:01 PM
Never mind, I just found the answer (also on the Wiki page): Fit-testing the SLC-6 launch pad. Any others' comments about the cool-looking bright red conning tower? What does "fit-testing" actually entail?
Thanks!
With Enterprise, just checking that everything would fit a real orbiter and checkout of the mechanical systems. Nothing more, no gas or fluid loading tests as Enterprise didn't have the necessary hardware.
Plan as of late 1985 was to ferry Columbia from KSC to VAFB for tanking tests and a Flight Readiness Firing. Once Columbia arrived back at KSC, Discovery would have been ferried to VAFB for final pre-flight processing for mission STS-62A, the first Vandenberg shuttle mission.
But then the Challenger accident happened and neither Columbia or Discovery ever left KSC for VAFB. Then the Air Force withdrew from the shuttle program and closed SLC-6.
The Mate/De-mate Device at Vandenberg got dismantled and erected at Palmdale while all the equipment in the Vandenber Orbiter Maintenance and Checkout Facility got sent to KSC outfitting the Orbiter Maintenance and Refurbishment Facility thus creating OPF-3.
-
#896
by
pr1268
on 21 Apr, 2008 22:10
-
Thanks, DaveS for the quick reply.
I've another (unrelated) question: How noisy is the Shuttle cockpit at launch? Specifically, how well can the "roar" of igniting the SSMEs be heard from the astronauts? How about the SRB ignition/burning?
Some time ago I read 163 dB SPL outside the Orbiter vehicle--seems like instant deafness. How loud (or quiet) is it inside?
P.S. I've watched with enthusiastic interest the STS-112 launch from inside (downloaded from L2), but that video had the intercom loop patched in (and besides, someone's heavy breathing kept activating the VOX throughout the video). I could "feel" the ignition and launch, but I didn't perceive any SSME/SRB sounds.
P.P.S. This seems like a common question to ask here, but my search came up empty. Thanks!
-
#897
by
psloss
on 21 Apr, 2008 22:27
-
DaveS - 21/4/2008 5:30 PM
Plan as of late 1985 was to ferry Columbia from KSC to VAFB for tanking tests and a Flight Readiness Firing. Once Columbia arrived back at KSC, Discovery would have been ferried to VAFB for final pre-flight processing for mission STS-62A, the first Vandenberg shuttle mission.
I don't believe Columbia was involved in the Vandenberg testing plans until after the 51-L disaster. At the time of the disaster, I believe the plan was for Discovery to do all that, since it was the dedicated VAFB orbiter. (And Columbia had missions manifested for it from KSC through 1986, beginning with 61-E.)
-
#898
by
Jim
on 22 Apr, 2008 01:02
-
DaveS - 21/4/2008 5:30 PM
The Mate/De-mate Device at Vandenberg got dismantled and erected at Palmdale
Orbiter Lifting Frame (OLF) vs MDD
-
#899
by
Jim
on 22 Apr, 2008 01:09
-
pr1268 - 21/4/2008 5:01 PM
Any others' comments about the cool-looking bright red conning tower?
That was the former Umbilical Tower from the MOL days. It was modified for orbiter access, LOX beanie cap and LH2 umbilical
