-
#1220
by
Jorge
on 28 May, 2010 23:17
-
I have questions regarding the shuttle fly-around upon leaving MIR.
Was this performed back then as is currently with ISS?
Yes.
If so, on STS 63 was this maneuver flown by shuttle PLT Collins?
Thanks.
No. On STS-63 the CDR (Wetherbee) flew all the Mir prox ops (I think Collins flew some of the SPARTAN prox ops). The practice of allowing the PLT to perform the flyaround started with Precourt on STS-71.
-
#1221
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 31 May, 2010 18:41
-
Not so sure if this is specifically a shuttle question.
Many have mentioned that the use of Saturn heritage equipment has kept the program costs astronomical. Is the reason for such high infrastructure costs due to the old age/labor intensive operations or is it due to the sheer size fo things like the pad/MLP/VAb? I know that for Ares V a new crawler/transporter was looked at (see l2), could a newer ML/CT and newer HLV infrastructure save much reoccurring costs?
-
#1222
by
butters
on 31 May, 2010 20:02
-
Not so sure if this is specifically a shuttle question.
Many have mentioned that the use of Saturn heritage equipment has kept the program costs astronomical. Is the reason for such high infrastructure costs due to the old age/labor intensive operations or is it due to the sheer size fo things like the pad/MLP/VAb? I know that for Ares V a new crawler/transporter was looked at (see l2), could a newer ML/CT and newer HLV infrastructure save much reoccurring costs?
The DIRECT guys seem to conclude that the orbiter and its processing flow is the low-hanging fruit for reducing the cost of the KSC/STS operation.
I'm fairly sure that's true, but I'm not sure how much cheaper the equivalent missions could have been executed.
I think it's just inherently uneconomical the way we dip our feet in the water of human spaceflight (mainly to prove we can), and it may be that the only way to really get a better return on investment is to increase spending by like an order of magnitude.
I should think it's becoming clear to most space enthusiasts that we're just not operating on a scale that makes economic sense, and the questions we need to answer begin with "why" rather than "how".
-
#1223
by
JayP
on 07 Jun, 2010 14:31
-
Can anyone tell me what this grille in the vertical stabablizer is for? I've never noticed it in any photos before and I have never read anything about it.
In the high resolution image, you can see that it is a perf-metal plate with fasteners. The interesting thing is the round feature of a different color in the center of the plate. It looks like a discoloration caused by hot gasses passing through the vent. Is this possibly for the exhaust products of the deployment mortar for the pilot chute?
edit- I outlined the pannel in question, but it is hard to see in the thumbnail. It is about midway up on the very left side of the photo.
-
#1224
by
Jim
on 07 Jun, 2010 15:11
-
It doesn't look a grille to me, it looks a composite flat panel with a honeycomb "shadow"
-
#1225
by
DMeader
on 07 Jun, 2010 15:47
-
Any need for venting of the stab?
Even more interesting... what is the lettering on the pink tags surrounding it.
-
#1226
by
sivodave
on 12 Jun, 2010 08:39
-
Hi all.
Are you awere of any documents explaining or showing the history of the development of the RMS? On Heppenheimer's Development of the Space Shuttle book there are just 2 pages. I'd like to find something more specific about the problems met during the development and building of the RMS.
Thanks in advance
Davide
-
#1227
by
DMeader
on 14 Jun, 2010 13:01
-
Even more interesting... what is the lettering on the pink tags surrounding it.
Seriously... what is on those pink (and green ones elsewhere in the photo) tags around the area in question? I've seen them in other photos as well. I assume they indicate an area that is in work or requires attention.
-
#1228
by
Jim
on 14 Jun, 2010 13:02
-
They are marking which tiles need work.
-
#1229
by
NASAGeek
on 14 Jun, 2010 16:56
-
on the famous picture of Bruce McCandless flying the MMU on STS-41B. I noticed what looks like above the helmet visor it looks like what the current EVA suits have with the camera and its not the MMU camera but on the spacesuit itself above the visor. I forget what its called but I think the acronym is WVS? but my question is I thought the camera above the visor showing what the astronaut sees were first introduced on STS-97 unless it was first introduced on an earlier flight and I missed it. Because I seen it a couple of times in early shuttle eva photos.
-
#1230
by
sivodave
on 18 Jun, 2010 08:40
-
Hi all.
A couple of quick question about the RMS:
1) Has never been any major malfunction to the RMS in any of the space shuttle missions till now performed? I mean some kind of malfunction that prevented the RMS to be used. To my knowledge it’s never happened but I’d like to be 100% sure of it.
2) In which way astronauts are trained to be RMS operator? Which kind of failure and contingency scenario are they trained for? How long does it take for being trained on the RMS use? Is there any manual available explaining in the main the training for RMS operators?
3) I know that there is a jettison system that allows the crew to get rid of the RMS in case at the end of the mission is not possible to restow it. However it’s not clear, from what I’ve read till now, if for this operation is necessary to have someone outside in EVA. I mean, in which way can they control the trajectory of the discarded RMS once it’s been jettisoned so that it doesn’t hit the orbiter?
Thanks in advance
Davide
-
#1231
by
Jim
on 18 Jun, 2010 14:09
-
STS-11/41-B had an RMS failure
-
#1232
by
SiameseCat
on 19 Jun, 2010 04:00
-
At what point in the approach phase do the guidance modes displayed on the HUD change (e.g. from OGS to FLARE, and FLARE to FINAL)? Are these based on altitude, or something else?
-
#1233
by
trebloc
on 19 Jun, 2010 19:52
-
Often wondered why the shuttle airlock was internal pre ISS and not placed in the payload bay as it is now. It would have generated a lot of additional space in the crew compartment. Was it to do with useable space in the payload or center of gravity?
-
#1234
by
Jorge
on 19 Jun, 2010 20:00
-
Often wondered why the shuttle airlock was internal pre ISS and not placed in the payload bay as it is now. It would have generated a lot of additional space in the crew compartment. Was it to do with useable space in the payload or center of gravity?
The former (assuming by "payload" you mean "payload bay").
-
#1235
by
JayP
on 19 Jun, 2010 21:22
-
Often wondered why the shuttle airlock was internal pre ISS and not placed in the payload bay as it is now. It would have generated a lot of additional space in the crew compartment. Was it to do with useable space in the payload or center of gravity?
It was to maximize the useable length of the payload bay. That was a big part of the reason why Columbia was used to launch Chandra, it was the only one it could fit into. Even after they developed the external airlock and docking system, they didn't remove the internal airlocks until they were committed to building the ISS. The high inclination orbit meant that the shuttle couldn't cary payloads heavy enough that they would take up the entire bay anyways.
By the way, I have seen drawings dating back to 1982 that show the basic design of the exterior airlock, so even back then, they were thinking about it.
-
#1236
by
trebloc
on 20 Jun, 2010 15:57
-
Often wondered why the shuttle airlock was internal pre ISS and not placed in the payload bay as it is now. It would have generated a lot of additional space in the crew compartment. Was it to do with useable space in the payload or center of gravity?
It was to maximize the useable length of the payload bay. That was a big part of the reason why Columbia was used to launch Chandra, it was the only one it could fit into. Even after they developed the external airlock and docking system, they didn't remove the internal airlocks until they were committed to building the ISS. The high inclination orbit meant that the shuttle couldn't cary payloads heavy enough that they would take up the entire bay anyways.
By the way, I have seen drawings dating back to 1982 that show the basic design of the exterior airlock, so even back then, they were thinking about it.
Thank you, always wondered about that.
-
#1237
by
trebloc
on 20 Jun, 2010 15:57
-
Often wondered why the shuttle airlock was internal pre ISS and not placed in the payload bay as it is now. It would have generated a lot of additional space in the crew compartment. Was it to do with useable space in the payload or center of gravity?
The former (assuming by "payload" you mean "payload bay").
Yes Payload bay,...my error.
-
#1238
by
Zero-G
on 20 Jun, 2010 19:01
-
(...) Even after they developed the external airlock and docking system, they didn't remove the internal airlocks until they were committed to building the ISS. (...)
Does that mean that they actually flew some missions with two airlocks: with the newly installed external airlock and docking system, and with the internal airlock not yet removed? If so, which missions were they, and did they at least remove some parts of the internal airlock to save some weight?
Or do I missunderstand your statement?
-
#1239
by
Jorge
on 20 Jun, 2010 19:10
-
(...) Even after they developed the external airlock and docking system, they didn't remove the internal airlocks until they were committed to building the ISS. (...)
Does that mean that they actually flew some missions with two airlocks: with the newly installed external airlock and docking system, and with the internal airlock not yet removed? If so, which missions were they, and did they at least remove some parts of the internal airlock to save some weight?
Most of the Shuttle-Mir missions flew in this config.