-
#1240
by
DaveS
on 20 Jun, 2010 19:59
-
(...) 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.
More specifically, all the OV-104 Shuttle-Mir missions. When OV-103 and OV-105 made their dockings they both had the permanent ODS configuration used today.
-
#1241
by
JayP
on 20 Jun, 2010 20:04
-
(...) 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.
Plus, all of the SpaceLab and SpaceHab flights from STS-9 to STS-107 flew with a component called a tunnel adaptor that functioned as an external airlock, so some of the Shuttle-Mir flights actually had 3 airlocks installed.
As far as parts being removed, I'm not sure, but I believe they usually removed the normal external hatch from the internal airlock at least. the 4 bar hinges are attached by pins so it realatively easy to remove between flights. That is also why the hatch is D-shaped.
-
#1242
by
Andy_MKST
on 20 Jun, 2010 21:09
-
Other then the seats, what additional hardware was installed for the ejection system?
I assumed there must have been something to blow out the overhead panels and the pressure structure.
Does anyone know of anything?
-
#1243
by
Jim
on 20 Jun, 2010 21:23
-
I assumed there must have been something to blow out the overhead panels and the pressure structure.
Yes, there was and the handle to do it was in the center console
-
#1244
by
JayP
on 21 Jun, 2010 03:43
-
I assumed there must have been something to blow out the overhead panels and the pressure structure.
Yes, there was and the handle to do it was in the center console
Actually, that handle is for blowing out the outer 2 panels of the port-side, overhead window. The overhead hatches above each seat would have been linked to the seats ejection handles.
-
#1245
by
sivodave
on 23 Jun, 2010 06:20
-
Hi all.
I was looking for some technical documents about the OBSS.
Thanks
Davide
-
#1246
by
AnalogMan
on 28 Jun, 2010 23:46
-
Yes, multiple times, but more frequently with the old GPCs than the current ones.
Old GPCs has me curious. I remember reading multiple posts on here about why dont they upgrade the computer hardware on the orbiters since they date back to a 1960/70 design. The response was understandably that the computers have proved themselves, and that to update them would be too costly. So, when were the GPC's replaced, and how are they better?
Early 1990s, went from the AP-101B to the AP-101S, binary-compatible with the old GPC, has the I/O Processor (IOP) integrated into the GPC case, twice as much memory (enables the entry software to be stored in an upper-memory archive for quick recall in case of emergency deorbit), solid state memory instead of core.
A bit of a late follow-up to this topic, but a short web article on the GPCs has just been posted by NASA:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/flyout/flyfeature_shuttlecomputers.html
-
#1247
by
mkirk
on 01 Jul, 2010 19:58
-
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?
Hopefully the chart I attached will help answer your question rearding the Guidance/Nav modes on the space shuttle's HUD during the approach. If not ask away and eventually someone with the answer will reply.
Begining on the HAC (Heading alignment Cone) the modes you will see are HDG (Heading), PRFNL (Pre-final), CAPT (Capture), OGS (outer glide slope), Flare, FNFL (Final Flare).
The right hand side of the chart shows the conditions that need to be satisfied to transition thru these modes. FYI, "Gamma" refers to flight path angle.
Mark Kirkman
-
#1248
by
SiameseCat
on 02 Jul, 2010 12:09
-
Thanks for the chart mkirk.
-
#1249
by
sivodave
on 02 Jul, 2010 15:44
-
Hi Mkirk.
where have you found that chart?
Thanks
Davide
-
#1250
by
DaveS
on 05 Jul, 2010 20:10
-
I know some people in the past have asked about the Stabilized Payload Deployment System(SPDS). This is a nice document I found on NTRS about it with rather nice and clear graphics:
http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19890014524
-
#1251
by
dwfx
on 07 Jul, 2010 07:26
-
What is the maximum altitude that would be achieved during an RTLS abort?
-
#1252
by
elmarko
on 07 Jul, 2010 07:52
-
Usually a little higher isn't it? They loft the trajectory.
-
#1253
by
AnalogMan
on 07 Jul, 2010 10:45
-
What is the maximum altitude that would be achieved during an RTLS abort?
The diagram below shows a typical RTLS abort profile - the maximum altitude is about 430,000ft in this instance. I don't know what the variation would be over the range of scenarios considered in the planning of this type of abort.
-
#1254
by
sivodave
on 07 Jul, 2010 15:20
-
Has it been ever used the Stabilized Payload Deployment System(SPDS)? I didn't know the existance of this mechanism before DaveS posted that link a couple of posts ago.
thanks.
Davide
-
#1255
by
Jim
on 07 Jul, 2010 15:26
-
-
#1256
by
usn_skwerl
on 12 Jul, 2010 15:38
-
What is the contingency plan if the flash evaporator fails after reentry burn?
-
#1257
by
mkirk
on 12 Jul, 2010 17:40
-
What is the contingency plan if the flash evaporator fails after reentry burn?
Timing of the failure is everything (how long after TIG), but generally you would rely on the “Cold Soak” of the radiators, which was conducted prior to payload bay door closure, and use of the ammonia boilers to provide enough cooling thru landing.
Mark Kirkman
-
#1258
by
alexw
on 12 Jul, 2010 18:32
-
What is the contingency plan if the flash evaporator fails after reentry burn?
Timing of the failure is everything (how long after TIG), but generally you would rely on the “Cold Soak” of the radiators, which was conducted prior to payload bay door closure, and use of the ammonia boilers to provide enough cooling thru landing.
In a contingency situation, would one risk shutting down an APU? (Or for early failure, delaying startup of #2 and #3?) I assume that's the biggest heat load. IIRC, the flight surfaces still travel at full speed with two APUs.
-Alex
-
#1259
by
usn_skwerl
on 12 Jul, 2010 20:40
-
That was going to be my follow-up. Well played!
