-
#1580
by
Mark Dave
on 07 Feb, 2011 23:36
-
-
#1581
by
DaveS
on 08 Feb, 2011 15:28
-
Can someone please remind me where the RTLS dump port for the Centaur LH2 system was on the orbiter?
-
#1582
by
Jim
on 08 Feb, 2011 15:35
-
Can someone please remind me where the RTLS dump port for the Centaur LH2 system was on the orbiter?
vertical stablizer
-
#1583
by
Space Invaders
on 08 Feb, 2011 15:38
-
By how much would the payload to LEO increase if the Shuttle flew unmanned and therefore could use a more agressive ascent profile?
-
#1584
by
Jim
on 08 Feb, 2011 15:40
-
By how much would the payload to LEO increase if the Shuttle flew unmanned and therefore could use a more agressive ascent profile?
As nothing to do with the crew, it is structural limits
-
#1585
by
DaveS
on 08 Feb, 2011 15:42
-
Can someone please remind me where the RTLS dump port for the Centaur LH2 system was on the orbiter?
vertical stablizer
Thanks! So there wasn't a dedicated LH2 dump port located below the RBUS umbilical port on the orbiter?
-
#1586
by
Malderi
on 08 Feb, 2011 17:18
-
By how much would the payload to LEO increase if the Shuttle flew unmanned and therefore could use a more agressive ascent profile?
As nothing to do with the crew, it is structural limits
From what I understand, there's a decent factor of safety on that - the structure is supposed to be able to take up to 3.5 or 3.6G's, right? Would there be any performance gain from throttling the SSME's to 3.1 or 3.2 late in ascent?
-
#1587
by
Pheogh
on 08 Feb, 2011 17:45
-
Is anyone aware or can point me to any video of the crew arriving at the Pad for launch that has audio. Just saw a replay of a video of Mike Massamino on Craig Ferguson describing the sounds out at the Pad when the stack is fueled and ready to go. Just wondering if there is any media (movies) out there that capture the ambient noise he is talking about.
-
#1588
by
DaveS
on 08 Feb, 2011 18:12
-
I guess this one is for Jim: Any idea on the color of the CISS LH2/LOX service pipes? Right now I'm going with same color as the pipes on the EDO pallet.
-
#1589
by
Hoonte
on 09 Feb, 2011 08:37
-
I found this 70s shuttle concept picture and I wonder what the intention was for the canard like structe on the nose.. Minuature solar panel?
-
#1590
by
Fequalsma
on 09 Feb, 2011 10:12
-
I think some of the early concepts had deployable RCS pods.
I found this 70s shuttle concept picture and I wonder what the intention was for the canard like structe on the nose.. Minuature solar panel?
-
#1591
by
Jim
on 09 Feb, 2011 11:14
-
I think some of the early concepts had deployable RCS pods.
I found this 70s shuttle concept picture and I wonder what the intention was for the canard like structe on the nose.. Minuature solar panel?
Bingo
-
#1592
by
simonbp
on 09 Feb, 2011 18:47
-
IIRC, even as late as 1975, after the positions of the RCS had been finalized, they still had doors covering them. The full-scale mock-up that NAA-Rockwell built, for example, had them.
-
#1593
by
Hoonte
on 10 Feb, 2011 07:24
-
-
#1594
by
Mark Dave
on 10 Feb, 2011 13:52
-
-
#1595
by
DaveS
on 10 Feb, 2011 17:09
-
-
#1596
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 10 Feb, 2011 17:31
-
What is the use of these white paper covers on the ET? http://homepage.mac.com/georgegassaway/GRP/Scale/ShuttleData/STRUTS_interfaces/Shuttle_Umbilical_Hydrogen.jpg From launch videos showing close ups of this area, they aren't removed prior to launch either.
They are early indicators of a H2 fire. The reason for that is that hydrogen burns with an invisible flame only visible to IR cameras. So to maximize the detection chances, some patches of paper were added to the left-aft struts.
Was this after the 41D abort incident or more recent than that?
-
#1597
by
JayP
on 10 Feb, 2011 19:10
-
Out of curiosity, what is the procedure for removing a tile? You can't stick something under it from the side and pry it off and I would think that somehow latching onto the outer surface and pulling would cause the tile to split at the densification layer, so how do they do it?
-
#1598
by
JonC
on 10 Feb, 2011 19:44
-
Here's a shuttle question I can't find an answer for...
What was the reason why the name of the shuttle was moved from the payload bay door to behind the cockpit? Similarly, adding the orbiter name on the top of the wing?
If I recall correctly, Columbia and Challenger were the only two to have the name on the payload doors, but then it was moved on Columbia during an overhaul.
Similarly, you had the dark sections on the wing root of Columbia, which eventually went away. Maybe this was due to changes in the thermal protection?
-
#1599
by
Namechange User
on 10 Feb, 2011 19:52
-
Here's a shuttle question I can't find an answer for...
What was the reason why the name of the shuttle was moved from the payload bay door to behind the cockpit? Similarly, adding the orbiter name on the top of the wing?
If I recall correctly, Columbia and Challenger were the only two to have the name on the payload doors, but then it was moved on Columbia during an overhaul.
Similarly, you had the dark sections on the wing root of Columbia, which eventually went away. Maybe this was due to changes in the thermal protection?
It's more cool that way and you can still see it when the doors are open.
They "standardized" Columbia, with respect to the name/logo on the wing during the last OMDP. All the vehicles were tweaked when NASA changed back to the "meatball" logo.
Columbia's black tles on the chine area were there do to unknowns about the heating environment on the first flights and kept that way always to give her a bit of "distinction" from the rest of the fleet as the first.
