-
#1480
by
Mark Dave
on 04 Dec, 2010 13:25
-
Given the GUCP, has the end attaching to the vent arm been replaced whenever that problem has happened or has the GUCP problem always been on the ET itself?
-
#1481
by
padrat
on 08 Dec, 2010 19:23
-
IIRC the problems with the GUCP in the past few years have all been with the 7" QD, which is actually part of the tank. Once the GSE swing arms shop disconnects the vent line from the GUCP then the ET guys take over for the most part.
-
#1482
by
AS-503
on 09 Dec, 2010 16:06
-
I am thinking about the ET and would like to ask some questions.
When tanking the ET goes through some cryogenic torture. How much does the ET shrink when exposed to this relatively extreme temperature change?
Does this shrinkage occur uniformly?
I would think that the different temp.s of the LOX and the LH2 in tandem with the intertank’s non exposure (and different structure) would lead to very different relative movement “shrinkage” over the whole surface area of the ET.
I would assume that the feed lines on the orbiter are hard points, while the tripod mount would act like a ball joint of sorts to accommodate this movement. Is this correct?
On ascent the ET is pressurized with gaseous O2 and H2 that come from the fuel (LH2) and oxidizer (LOX) supply once it has gone through a heat exchanger on the SSME. These gasses are supplied through the 5 inch lines that parallel the 17 inch LOX feed line (that’s as big as a compact disc in diameter).
At what temperature are these gasses fed to their respective tanks?
These feed lines do not appear to have any insulation on them. If “warm” gas is fed to these tanks, what does that do for the cryogenic environment?
Does this increase boil off for the short duration the ET is in flight?
On ascent does the foam provide a good barrier (relative to the interior) from atmospheric heating?
How much does the ET deform in flight (both from off loading of propellants and flight dynamics)? Which of these two influence this deformation the most?
I have read that the ET is discarded with high pressure in the 2 tanks to aid in reentry burn up. Somewhat like a balloon just ready to pop. What would happen to the ET on reentry if there was no internal pressure? Wouldn’t it still break up and burn satisfactorily?
On ET jettison is the forward attach point (tripod) preloaded fore/aft from the ET stretching/contracting during flight? If so, does it “twang” when released?
What happens to all of the fuel and oxidizer still in the feed lines inside the orbiter upon ET jettison (from the disconnects all the way to the combustion chamber)? For that matter what about the amount still in the feed lines on the ET?
Thanks so much for any answers.
I was looking at some KSC processing photos of STS-133 and I just stared at the wall for a few minutes thinking about the ET.
-
#1483
by
Jim
on 09 Dec, 2010 16:32
-
1. I would assume that the feed lines on the orbiter are hard points, while the tripod mount would act like a ball joint of sorts to accommodate this movement. Is this correct?
2. Does this increase boil off for the short duration the ET is in flight?
3. On ascent does the foam provide a good barrier (relative to the interior) from atmospheric heating?
4. I have read that the ET is discarded with high pressure in the 2 tanks to aid in reentry burn up. Somewhat like a balloon just ready to pop. What would happen to the ET on reentry if there was no internal pressure? Wouldn’t it still break up and burn satisfactorily?
5. What happens to all of the fuel and oxidizer still in the feed lines inside the orbiter upon ET jettison (from the disconnects all the way to the combustion chamber)?
6.For that matter what about the amount still in the feed lines on the ET?
1. yes.
2. Not really, The point of adding the gas to maintain head pressure for the engines and to keep the liquid from boiling off
3. Yes, that is one of its main jobs
4. Don't know, that is why it is pressurized
5. Vented during OMS burns through nozzles and ground umbilical disconnect
6. the same as the rest of the remaining propellant in the ET
-
#1484
by
pagoda
on 16 Dec, 2010 13:24
-
This seems to be the place for random questions.
Who are the closest people to the shuttle when it launches and where are they located (other than the astronauts)? I'm guessing that there are people to assist with emergency egress if it is needed, but that's just a guess.
-
#1485
by
sitharus
on 16 Dec, 2010 17:51
-
This seems to be the place for random questions.
Who are the closest people to the shuttle when it launches and where are they located (other than the astronauts)? I'm guessing that there are people to assist with emergency egress if it is needed, but that's just a guess.
This has been answered in one of the earlier Q&As, but from memory about three miles, possibly more. In emergencies the astronauts have to get out and to the bunker by themselves.
-
#1486
by
Ford Mustang
on 16 Dec, 2010 21:31
-
There are a few long-distance camera operators that are 2.4 miles from the pad, closer than the fallback area at 3 miles distance. I can't find anyone closer after looking at a quick search. I know the crew themselves do get out on their own, and are taught how to operate the M-113's by themselves - they used to have people operate the M-113s and were staged inside in case of an emergency.
That's about all I know.
-
#1487
by
TheGame0135
on 18 Dec, 2010 10:41
-
I wasn't sure if I should post this on the STS-133 thread or not so I put it here, administrators please move accordingly. And perhaps this was answered, but i didn't feel like reading through hundreds of pages to look. But is it possible that the GUCP caused the stringer crack seen on the 1st launch attempt? After yesterday's successful tanking test (in the sense of the GUCP didn't leak) and there were no visible problems with the tank could it be thought that perhaps the issue came from possible vibrations from the GUCP as it leaked considering these were off the chart readings when it leaked, meaning i would assume that the GUCP's unseen leak could have also caused unseen problems? Perhaps the vibrations caused more stress on the stringers is basically what I'm asking, obviously I don't work there and am just curious from my basic knowledge of vibrations and introductory knowledge of engineering. thanks to whoever can help me with this.
-
#1488
by
AnalogMan
on 18 Dec, 2010 13:25
-
... is it possible that the GUCP caused the stringer crack seen on the 1st launch attempt?
As reported in Chris B's article on Nov 8:
The crack was overviewed on Monday morning by the KSC Engineering Review Board (ERB), noting the time the crack appeared and the opening forward plan.
[...]
“The crack appeared at 7:08 am EDT, which was a few minutes prior to the initiation of the GUCP LH2 leak."http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/11/sts-133-plan-to-repair-et-137-foam-cracks-at-pad
-
#1489
by
Mark Dave
on 23 Dec, 2010 21:37
-
-
#1490
by
Jim
on 23 Dec, 2010 22:08
-
-
#1491
by
onyx_08
on 27 Dec, 2010 19:25
-
Hello, i have to say my english ist not very good but i will try my best that you can understand me. I have some question about the early days of the Space Shuttle.
1. Between STS-5 and STS-51L the shuttle crews donned light blue coveralls. Just before the crews entered the shuttle, they put on a helmet (what type of helmet was that??) an some type of a life west. Could this life wests saved crews when they had to make a landing in the water?
Why they did'nt used pressure suits at that time?
2. Some times the astronauts were posing in dark blue flight suits instead of the light blue suits. But the dark blue suits never used in flight! Why?
3. When i'm watching old shuttle launchs on youtube i hear the downlink calls ("Roger, go at throttle up!" and so on...), i can hear a different sounding transmission than the later calls. I can hardly describe how it sounds, i hope you can understand what i mean. Starting from STS-26 the calls sounds "normal" like we can hear it today. Which was the reason for it?
4. Joe Kerwin was still in active status in 1985, but he never flown again in space. Why did'nt he fly a shuttle mission when he was still in the astronaut office?
5. John Young was supposed to fly aboard Atlantis in the mid of 1986 to bring Hubble into orbit. But the flight was cancelled after the Challenger-disaster and he never flown again. Why?
6. Also Bob Crippen never flown again. Why?
7. STS-135 will be the last Space Shuttle mission ever. When you could chose the crew, who would you like to see on this historical flight? It would be great to see Anna Lee Fisher on that last flight because she had just one flight at all in 1985. She's still in active status. Also it would cool to see Crippen command the last flight. I know it's unrealistic, but it would be nice.
-
#1492
by
Jim
on 27 Dec, 2010 20:59
-
1.
a. launch and entry helmet
b. yes, life vest were for water landing
c. Shuttle was suppose to be safe and have intact aborts. They didn't think there was a need for space suits.
2. Blue suits are for aircraft
3. Performance is nominal
4. There is no logic to astronaut selection
5. Too old and wrote some bad letters about management and forgot he was part of management
6. Went into management
7. Crew has been selected
-
#1493
by
brettreds2k
on 29 Dec, 2010 12:05
-
I was looking at a picture of Discovery in the VAB online this morning, and it was a shot showing alot of the surface of the MLP, and I was starting to wonder, at launch how much damage is done to the MLP and how much refurb work goes into it before the next launch? Does it get repainted every time also? I was looking at it and I dont see any burn marks, etc which Id expect to see from the SME and the SRB's. Also do any of the large pipes around the SRB area get torn up, etc during a launch? Does anyone have pictures of the MLP after a launch?
Also I have always wondered, what are the 2 large peices that are on the MLP that are on in front of each wing, is that a deflector for the flames at lift off?
-
#1494
by
Jim
on 29 Dec, 2010 12:20
-
I was looking at a picture of Discovery in the VAB online this morning, and it was a shot showing alot of the surface of the MLP, and I was starting to wonder, at launch how much damage is done to the MLP and how much refurb work goes into it before the next launch? Does it get repainted every time also? I was looking at it and I dont see any burn marks, etc which Id expect to see from the SME and the SRB's. Also do any of the large pipes around the SRB area get torn up, etc during a launch? Does anyone have pictures of the MLP after a launch?
Also I have always wondered, what are the 2 large peices that are on the MLP that are on in front of each wing, is that a deflector for the flames at lift off?
Little damage, no real burn marks, just residue. The larger objects are the tail service masts, which provide propellants, power, cooling, conditioned air, etc to the orbiter.
-
#1495
by
brettreds2k
on 29 Dec, 2010 12:29
-
Thanks, I was always wondering what exactly those were for.
-
#1496
by
DaveS
on 02 Jan, 2011 15:58
-
This should be an easy one: how many degrees the Ku band DA rotate around its pivot point in the payload bay? Is it 113°s as the SCOM and Ku band antenna ops workbook states?
-
#1497
by
PeterAlt
on 05 Jan, 2011 02:56
-
I see that Atlantis is the only orbiter not equipped with SSPTS. Any chance they would remove Discovery's SSPTS adapter after STS-133 and install it to Atlantis for STS-135?
-
#1498
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 05 Jan, 2011 03:09
-
No.
-
#1499
by
PeterAlt
on 05 Jan, 2011 04:00
-
Any chance of using Discovery or Endeavor instead of Atlantis for STS-135, since those orbiters are better equipped for docking to ISS (as those two orbiters can stay an extended duration because they are equipped and upgraded with SSPTS). The extended stay could give the ISS a much-need science boost. Atlantis would continue to be prepared for its LON mission for STS-134, while Discovery (or Endeavor) would begin immediate processing for STS-135 after STS-133 (or STS-134). I bring up Endeavor because I think it is the most underused and most capable orbiter and I would love to see more use of it, though I realize there would be less time available to process it for it to be on time for a June launch. I understand that a June launch is the optimum time frame NASA managers have in mind for STS-135, but delaying the launch for a better orbiter may be a better option. Since The shuttle program will (most likely) get funded for all of FY2011, the funds are there to do this.