-
#1560
by
JayP
on 02 Feb, 2011 00:01
-
A pure O2 question. Does it make EVA's easier if the spacecraft has a pure O2 atmosphere?
Technical answer; Yes. In a pure O2 atmosphere, there is no risk of the bends when depressing down to the suit pressure.
-
#1561
by
Sesquipedalian
on 02 Feb, 2011 03:09
-
I know Jim is laconic by nature, but come on, this is a Q&A thread.
Elaboration is instructive, and aren't we all here to learn?
By Jim's second post I figured out what he was driving at, but I really appreciated Naito's and Jorge's more detailed answers. (Especially Jorge's, since materials science is not immediately obvious and not really something that could have been deduced from Jim's post.)
-
#1562
by
MP99
on 02 Feb, 2011 07:11
-
I suspect that it's mostly a function of time. ... Presumably, he has plenty of work to do, and his personal compromise is brutal efficiency against politeness.
That's exactly what I meant by "someone with more time on their hands".
Jim is a prolific poster, and NSF is always fortunate to have someone of encyclopedic knowledge willing to answer so many questions here.
Damn right. NSF would be much the poorer without him!
cheers, Martin
-
#1563
by
oannes
on 02 Feb, 2011 23:39
-
Columbia question:
If Columbia was limited to less glamorous missions because of its weight, was anything special required to get it to Hubble's high orbit on STS-109? Did it need an OMS burn during launch, for example? Or does the nearly-empty cargo bay of a Hubble servicing mission make the difference, i.e. maybe Columbia could not have launched Hubble but she could service it?
-
#1564
by
Jim
on 03 Feb, 2011 01:08
-
Columbia question:
If Columbia was limited to less glamorous missions because of its weight, was anything special required to get it to Hubble's high orbit on STS-109? Did it need an OMS burn during launch, for example? Or does the nearly-empty cargo bay of a Hubble servicing mission make the difference, i.e. maybe Columbia could not have launched Hubble but she could service it?
Correct on the last line.
-
#1565
by
DaveS
on 03 Feb, 2011 20:09
-
Why was the EVA translation slidewires removed from all the orbiters prior to RTF after the Columbia accident? They made a brief comeback on STS-125 but then was removed again following the flight.
-
#1566
by
Moe Grills
on 04 Feb, 2011 20:01
-
I could think of three possibilities offhand; which is correct?
Are the Space Shuttle windows made of:
!) Polycarbonate?
2) Tempered glass?
3) or a combination of the two (laminate)?
-
#1567
by
go4mars
on 04 Feb, 2011 20:06
-
I could think of three possibilities offhand; which is correct?
Are the Space Shuttle windows made of:
!) Polycarbonate?
2) Tempered glass?
3) or a combination of the two (laminate)?
Transparent aluminum (star trek shuttles). As to the current US ones, I've no idea either.
-
#1568
by
Jorge
on 04 Feb, 2011 20:07
-
-
#1569
by
AnalogMan
on 04 Feb, 2011 20:20
-
And to go with Jorge's link - a graphic showing how the panes are arranged.
-
#1570
by
Moe Grills
on 04 Feb, 2011 20:24
-
Thanks, Jorge.
-
#1571
by
Mark Dave
on 05 Feb, 2011 15:41
-
What was the need for the extra LH pressurization line seen on the first two external tanks for STS-1 thru 5?
-
#1572
by
DaveS
on 05 Feb, 2011 16:00
-
What was the need for the extra LH pressurization line seen on the first two external tanks for STS-1 thru 5?
There was not an extra LH2 press line on the first batch of SWTs. The large thick line right next to the 17" LOX feedline was a LOX-anti-geyser line.
Once a direct GHe injection method had been certified at then the NSTL, the LOX anti-geyser line was removed and the LH2 press line was relocated to right next to the LOX press line.
-
#1573
by
Mark Dave
on 05 Feb, 2011 22:07
-
-
#1574
by
DaveS
on 05 Feb, 2011 22:39
-
-
#1575
by
Hoonte
on 07 Feb, 2011 09:36
-
I've noticed, watching the sts-1 launch on youtube, that the rcs on the attached image is open. But on later missions they start closed and are 'blown' open at launch. What was the reason for this change?
-
#1576
by
Jim
on 07 Feb, 2011 10:32
-
I've noticed, watching the sts-1 launch on youtube, that the rcs on the attached image is open. But on later missions they start closed and are 'blown' open at launch. What was the reason for this change?
To prevent water entering the chamber. They are no covered with sheets of a material. I will let someone else provide the name of material.
-
#1577
by
elmarko
on 07 Feb, 2011 10:42
-
Tyvek, by DuPont
-
#1578
by
Mark Dave
on 07 Feb, 2011 13:35
-
I noticed in the video in the STS-1 thread I made why in the video the LOX vent arm/ hood is retracted so early in the launch count as compared to today's missions?
-
#1579
by
DaveS
on 07 Feb, 2011 13:37
-
I noticed in the video in the STS-1 thread I made why in the video the LOX vent arm/ hood is retracted so early in the launch count as compared to today's missions?
The answer is in this technical conference paper on NTRS:
http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19820015490
Elaboration is instructive, and aren't we all here to learn?