-
#1280
by
DaveS
on 05 Aug, 2010 14:27
-
Does anyone know the the height and width of the ET intertank stringers? Both the main ones and the ones on the SRB Thrust Panels.
-
#1281
by
DaveS
on 08 Aug, 2010 23:30
-
Which component causes the GOX streams coming from the SSME nozzles and is there anything specific that triggers it?
-
#1282
by
Jim
on 09 Aug, 2010 01:33
-
Which component causes the GOX streams coming from the SSME nozzles and is there anything specific that triggers it?
Purge valves. The different purge sequences (1-4)
-
#1283
by
DaveS
on 10 Aug, 2010 19:24
-
Here's a question about something has bugged me for a while now.
In all the animations of ET sep from the the orbiter post-MECO the ET is always shown as pitching down relative to Earth and the orbiter. But here's the part that's bugging me: Just about every launch since RTF in 2005 with the ET Cam shows the ET as being stationary WRT to the horizon after sep.
So, is the animations wrong or is the ET really pitching down after ET sep?
-
#1284
by
Lee Jay
on 10 Aug, 2010 19:39
-
If the orbiter pitches up, wouldn't plume impingement from the FRCS force the ET to pitch down a bit?
-
#1285
by
DaveS
on 10 Aug, 2010 19:47
-
If the orbiter pitches up, wouldn't plume impingement from the FRCS force the ET to pitch down a bit?
Don't know, all that I know is that from the ET cam the horizon stays pretty much stationary the FOV, only slowly moving, I guess from any non-zeroed post-MECO rates.
-
#1286
by
JayP
on 10 Aug, 2010 22:45
-
Here's a question about something has bugged me for a while now.
In all the animations of ET sep from the the orbiter post-MECO the ET is always shown as pitching down relative to Earth and the orbiter. But here's the part that's bugging me: Just about every launch since RTF in 2005 with the ET Cam shows the ET as being stationary WRT to the horizon after sep.
So, is the animations wrong or is the ET really pitching down after ET sep?
Almost all of the umbilcle well and post sep flight deck photos of the tank are almost side on to the tank. That means that a line from the camera (on the orbiter) is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the tank which would indicate that the tank is not pitching. Personanly, I think the tank stays basicly in the same attitude until the O2 vent valve blows.
-
#1287
by
psloss
on 10 Aug, 2010 22:58
-
In all the animations of ET sep from the the orbiter post-MECO the ET is always shown as pitching down relative to Earth and the orbiter. But here's the part that's bugging me: Just about every launch since RTF in 2005 with the ET Cam shows the ET as being stationary WRT to the horizon after sep.
What is the vintage of the animation? If it's old, as in flight test era, perhaps they were trying to depict the operation of the (no longer employed) tumble system.
-
#1288
by
Lee Jay
on 11 Aug, 2010 00:56
-
Almost all of the umbilcle well and post sep flight deck photos of the tank are almost side on to the tank. That means that a line from the camera (on the orbiter) is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the tank which would indicate that the tank is not pitching.
If that were true that would mean the tank is pitching (down) since the orbiter is translating forward before and during those pictures.
-
#1289
by
JAFO
on 12 Aug, 2010 17:39
-
I originally posted this in the Exportation Alternatives section but didn't get an answer, thought I might get one here.
I saw this image
in the "Completed SD HLV assessment highlights low-cost post-shuttle solution"
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/06/sd-hlv-assessment-highlights-post-shuttle-solution/I was wondering how much force is taken up by the nose tripod of the Shuttle/ET connection, and how much the ET would have to be reengineered to make this work? Is it really a practical low cost alternative?
Thank you for your time,
Steve
-
#1290
by
parham55
on 12 Aug, 2010 20:55
-
-
#1291
by
usn_skwerl
on 14 Aug, 2010 17:47
-
The bipod mount for the nose is only for side (yaw) loads. No structural (or thrust) loads,.....as I just now saw the linkparham55 posted.
-
#1292
by
padrat
on 17 Aug, 2010 00:56
-
The way I understand it the rear mounts take all of the thrust, the nose bipod just stabilizes the nose of the orbiter.
-
#1293
by
usn_skwerl
on 17 Aug, 2010 16:55
-
I heard many years ago from a long forgotten source that the parachute door of STS-95 fell off during launch and nearly hit one of the H2 lines on one of the SSME's (No. 1, IIRC). Can I get confirmation about that please?
-
#1294
by
psloss
on 17 Aug, 2010 17:08
-
I heard many years ago from a long forgotten source that the parachute door of STS-95 fell off during launch and nearly hit one of the H2 lines on one of the SSME's (No. 1, IIRC). Can I get confirmation about that please?
It did hit the nozzle of the center engine:
http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/news/columbia/anomaly/STS95.pdf"During Main Engine ignition at approximately T-5 seconds, ground-based photography showed the drag chute door detach from the Orbiter and impact the rim of SSME bell #1 during its downward descent."
A sped up clip of it can be downloaded/viewed here:
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/video/shuttle/sts-95/mpg/95d01c7.mpgWouldn't be surprised if it's on YouTube, also.
-
#1295
by
usn_skwerl
on 17 Aug, 2010 17:15
-
Wow, thanks for the quick reply, Philip! Much obliged.
-
#1296
by
usn_skwerl
on 17 Aug, 2010 18:06
-
While thinking about it...can I get a rundown of What-if scenarios? What if it did hit the H2 line? Would the valve to that cooling loop be closed intime to prevent anything worse to happen? RUD? RTLS? TAL?
-
#1297
by
DaveS
on 17 Aug, 2010 18:24
-
While thinking about it...can I get a rundown of What-if scenarios? What if it did hit the H2 line? Would the valve to that cooling loop be closed intime to prevent anything worse to happen? RUD? RTLS? TAL?
See STS-93. Three coolant tubes were ruptured on the center engine during ignition and H2 leaked leading to a LOX LLCO some 0.15 seconds prior to targeted MECO.
-
#1298
by
usn_skwerl
on 17 Aug, 2010 19:42
-
Ah, I hadn't even thought of that drama. Thanks again.
-
#1299
by
orbiter62995
on 18 Aug, 2010 23:49
-
I have an airlock question here.
On STS-96/2A.1, STS-101/2A.2a, and STS-106/2A.2b, how did the crews perform spacewalks? The LDM was in the payload bay and the access tunnel connected to the aft hatch of the ODS where spacewalks were usually carried out when docked to the ISS. Of course, the zenith hatch was connected to the PMAs.
The logical explanation, of course, would be if the spacewalks were to be conducted out the SPACEHAB transfer tunnel, however the ICC was present on each of these three missions above the chamber, so no spacewalking hatch could be added.
Mind you, Quest was installed on 7A (STS-104) in 2001, well after the last of the three aforementioned missions.
How did the six astronauts (Barry, Jernigan, Lu, Malenchenko, Voss, and Williams) exit the station on these missions?