-
#1700
by
Proponent
on 03 Mar, 2011 02:12
-
Ozone seems more likely; surely at one atmosphere atomic oxygen would combine to form molecular oxygen virtually instantaneously.
Grouchy pet peeve: chemical elements are not capitalized, thus "oxygen" (and "ozone") rather than "Oxygen", please.
-
#1701
by
alexw
on 03 Mar, 2011 04:53
-
They smell the same thing when returning EVA crewmembers enter the station. The vacuum/atomic oxygen causes a unique smell.
Ozone seems more likely; surely at one atmosphere atomic oxygen would combine to form molecular oxygen virtually instantaneously.
Jim may not be referring to the smell of atomic oxygen any more than the "smell" of vacuum, but rather the effects that the free radicals have on e.g. organic materials.
-Alex
-
#1702
by
JayP
on 04 Mar, 2011 16:49
-
What exactly is this fitting sticking out of the side of the aft compartment used for?
I used to think that it was for a jack stand to support the aft end in the OPF (like the fore end is) but I found out that they use the main landing gear or the ET salad bowls for that, so that isn't what its for.
-
#1703
by
DaveS
on 04 Mar, 2011 17:18
-
What exactly is this fitting sticking out of the side of the aft compartment used for?
I used to think that it was for a jack stand to support the aft end in the OPF (like the fore end is) but I found out that they use the main landing gear or the ET salad bowls for that, so that isn't what its for.
That's the vent port of Flash Evaporator#2. The vent port for Flash Evaporator#1 is on the port side.
-
#1704
by
brettreds2k
on 04 Mar, 2011 17:38
-
So what will happen with the SRB casings that were recovered after Discovery's launch last week since now the final 2 remaining flights already have thier SRBs prepped? And what will happen to the ones from Endevour and Atlantis since they would have no reason to refurb them
-
#1705
by
JayP
on 04 Mar, 2011 17:45
-
So what will happen with the SRB casings that were recovered after Discovery's launch last week since now the final 2 remaining flights already have thier SRBs prepped? And what will happen to the ones from Endevour and Atlantis since they would have no reason to refurb them
All of the current plans for a followup to the shuttle (SLS, Direct, even Ares (RIP)) envision using some version of the SRBs including re-using the current stock of hardware. The cases will be post flight processed as normal and then stored until they are needed again.
-
#1706
by
10W29
on 04 Mar, 2011 20:35
-
What exactly is this fitting sticking out of the side of the aft compartment used for?
I used to think that it was for a jack stand to support the aft end in the OPF (like the fore end is) but I found out that they use the main landing gear or the ET salad bowls for that, so that isn't what its for.
That's the vent port of Flash Evaporator#2. The vent port for Flash Evaporator#1 is on the port side.
More specifically, it's the FES starboard topping duct nozzle plug with a desiccant attached to it. The port topping duct nozzle plug is opposite and fwd of that (close to the 50-1 door) is the FES hi load duct nozzle plug.
-
#1707
by
JayP
on 04 Mar, 2011 23:34
-
What exactly is this fitting sticking out of the side of the aft compartment used for?
I used to think that it was for a jack stand to support the aft end in the OPF (like the fore end is) but I found out that they use the main landing gear or the ET salad bowls for that, so that isn't what its for.
That's the vent port of Flash Evaporator#2. The vent port for Flash Evaporator#1 is on the port side.
More specifically, it's the FES starboard topping duct nozzle plug with a desiccant attached to it. The port topping duct nozzle plug is opposite and fwd of that (close to the 50-1 door) is the FES hi load duct nozzle plug.
Thanks.
-
#1708
by
Mark Dave
on 05 Mar, 2011 15:27
-
I wondered what that small metal tube was sticking out of side of the aft fuselage near the body flap. Thanks fellas for clearing that up.
Why were Columbia's wings given the extra black tiles on the top of the wings and the other orbiters didn't? I'm also curious as to why she wasn't given a total AFRSI cover like OV-103, 104, and 105? She still had the old tiles covering the forward fuselage.
-
#1709
by
DaveS
on 05 Mar, 2011 15:32
-
I wondered what that small metal tube was sticking out of side of the aft fuselage near the body flap. Thanks fellas for clearing that up.
Why were Columbia's wings given the extra black tiles on the top of the wings and the other orbiters didn't? I'm also curious as to why she wasn't given a total AFRSI cover like OV-103, 104, and 105? She still had the old tiles covering the forward fuselage.
On the black upper wing chines: Not tiles exactly. That was just a thermal coating paint applied to already existing LRSI and FRSI TPS while she was still OPF1 prior to the first flight.
Some analysis showed that it was necessary but subsequent flights showed the analysis was wrong and none of the subsequent orbiters had it applied.
I think they were planning to do the tile to blanket transition in stages to minimize orbiter down time between missions.
-
#1710
by
Mark Dave
on 06 Mar, 2011 12:23
-
I see. Hmm, my guess is had Columbia's accident not happened, she would look somewhat similar to the other orbiters.
-
#1711
by
Jim
on 06 Mar, 2011 12:56
-
I see. Hmm, my guess is had Columbia's accident not happened, she would look somewhat similar to the other orbiters.
She wasvalways different in that aspect and there was no plan to change the paint. The tlles would only be changed for repair
-
#1712
by
JayP
on 07 Mar, 2011 15:04
-
I see. Hmm, my guess is had Columbia's accident not happened, she would look somewhat similar to the other orbiters.
Actually, there has been almost no "cosmetic" work done on the orbiters over the years. The one big exception was the repainting done as part of Goldin's famous banning of the "worm". If you look at close up photos of the various rescue lables and instructions painted around the exterior of the cabin, you'll notice that the wording is almost illegible after all these years since they have never been redone since the orbiter's were first assembled.
-
#1713
by
iskyfly
on 07 Mar, 2011 18:49
-
In this STS-123 launch video clip from inside the cabin;
"bias in the PC booster" 1:47
what does that mean?
whats with the counting right after liftoff?
also, is that a C&W alarm going off at 3:09 ?
also, compared to the handful of cabin vids ive seen this crew seems more vocal about their emotions ("i love you guys"), and more excited in their tone of voice (engine ig and liftoff) than others.
-
#1714
by
Danny Dot
on 07 Mar, 2011 20:01
-
Great video. Thanks for posting.
-
#1715
by
Jorge
on 07 Mar, 2011 20:14
-
In this STS-123 launch video clip from inside the cabin;
"bias in the PC booster" 1:47
what does that mean?
PC 'ducer, not booster. PC means "chamber pressure" and 'ducer is short for transducer. Bias means the 'ducer is reading differently than it should.
whats with the counting right after liftoff?
Counting up to roll program, I think, but I'm not an ascent guy.
also, is that a C&W alarm going off at 3:09 ?
Yes, class 2 C&W siren.
-
#1716
by
DarkenedOne
on 07 Mar, 2011 22:20
-
Hey guys I was just wondering if anybody could tell me whether or not the reusable solid rocket boosters used by the Shuttle were any cheaper than expendable ones.
From what I heard they are not considerably cheaper. Ares I seems to confirm this as its estimated operational cost was over a billion per flight. I also seems like the rest of the rocket industry does not seem interested in reusable solid boosters.
-
#1717
by
Jorge
on 07 Mar, 2011 22:27
-
Hey guys I was just wondering if anybody could tell me whether or not the reusable solid rocket boosters used by the Shuttle were any cheaper than expendable ones.
The costs are pretty much a wash. The rationale for continuing to recover them is more postflight analysis for safety trends than economics.
-
#1718
by
DarkenedOne
on 07 Mar, 2011 22:35
-
Hey guys I was just wondering if anybody could tell me whether or not the reusable solid rocket boosters used by the Shuttle were any cheaper than expendable ones.
The costs are pretty much a wash. The rationale for continuing to recover them is more postflight analysis for safety trends than economics.
Why is that necessary especially after a decent number have flown?
-
#1719
by
Jorge
on 07 Mar, 2011 23:03
-
Hey guys I was just wondering if anybody could tell me whether or not the reusable solid rocket boosters used by the Shuttle were any cheaper than expendable ones.
The costs are pretty much a wash. The rationale for continuing to recover them is more postflight analysis for safety trends than economics.
Why is that necessary especially after a decent number have flown?
1) To serve as an end-check of process integrity and prevent "escapes".
2) Define "decent number". The number of shuttle flights to date (133) would not even suffice for a flight-test program for a typical airliner or military plane. It is still very much an experimental vehicle.
