-
#2000
by
JayP
on 05 Jun, 2011 23:01
-
Is it true that one of the limitations of the Shuttle's wingspan design was the ability to fit through the transfer aisle during Lift/Mate??
TIA,
Steve
Not really for lift/mate since they can swivel it once they have it vertical, but the width of the transfer aisle (95') was a constraint on the wingspan (78') since they roll the orbiter in horizontaly.
-
#2001
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 05 Jun, 2011 23:12
-
what happens to "trash" that is brought down on the MPLM? I understand that some of it is taken for engineering analysis especially if it is failed components, but WHat about things like shirts, pants and packing foam? Is there a dumpster that they are thrown in beside the SSPF? And in that case, how can I get a dumpster diving permit
-
#2002
by
DMeader
on 05 Jun, 2011 23:14
-
I see. Though I do wonder why the left booster has more of these than the right one? Does the left booster being closer to the FSS get more strain from the shockwaves at launch?
I'm reading a book about the X-15... one side of the aircraft was heavily instrumented with thermocouples and pressure pick-off points, with very few on the other side. The thinking was that the aircraft was symmetrical, so the measurements on one side would be basically the same as the other side. Instrumenting only one side saved significantly in the areas of weight and complexity. I suspect the same thing goes here for the Shuttle stack.
-
#2003
by
Mark Dave
on 07 Jun, 2011 00:29
-
-
#2004
by
SiameseCat
on 10 Jun, 2011 18:22
-
How fast can each of the individual joints on the RMS move? Also, what are the overall speed limits for the RMS? The RMS speed seems to be limited to 2.0 fps (according to the PDRS documents I've seen), but I'm wondering if this is due to mechanical constraints or just so it doesn't bump into anything.
-
#2005
by
simonbp
on 13 Jun, 2011 05:27
-
This has most certainly been covered before, but what is the contingency if one of the SRBs fails to ignite?
-
#2006
by
Proponent
on 13 Jun, 2011 05:31
-
I've asked; apparently there is none. Somebody must be supremely confident that it won't happen.
-
#2007
by
Jorge
on 13 Jun, 2011 05:37
-
I've asked; apparently there is none.
No, there is a contingency plan. Range Safety would order spectators to shelter in-place, and LCC and MCC would lock the doors and take steps to preserve data for the investigation.
Somebody must be supremely confident that it won't happen.
The pyros are extremely reliable, there are redundant pyros with multiple command paths.
-
#2008
by
alexw
on 13 Jun, 2011 06:23
-
Well, that's not /much/ of a contingency plan, but it would seem to be all that could humanly be done.
A certain amount of work, IIRC, goes into the NASA Standard Initiator, in generating and maintaining supreme confidence that it will work on time, every time. IIRC, there was some question a while back about a recent manufacturing batch.
-Alex
-
#2009
by
Nicolas PILLET
on 13 Jun, 2011 14:38
-
When flying a shuttle mission to the ISS with external payloads, you can use an ICC or a LMC. What are the differences between these to platforms ? Why would you use one rather than the other ?
Altought ICC is well documented, it is very hard to find documentation on LMC. Someone has documents to share ?
Thanks !
-
#2010
by
simonbp
on 13 Jun, 2011 19:23
-
No, there is a contingency plan. Range Safety would order spectators to shelter in-place, and LCC and MCC would lock the doors and take steps to preserve data for the investigation.
So, I assume that means that there is zero chance of the orbiter surviving in such a case?
Semi-related, but is there a public (or L2) list of Shuttle contingency plans?
-
#2011
by
Jorge
on 13 Jun, 2011 19:46
-
No, there is a contingency plan. Range Safety would order spectators to shelter in-place, and LCC and MCC would lock the doors and take steps to preserve data for the investigation.
So, I assume that means that there is zero chance of the orbiter surviving in such a case?
Correct.
-
#2012
by
sascha_l
on 19 Jun, 2011 17:15
-
Does anyone know how the Orbiter's rudder/speedbrake actuators work?
Are there actuators for each surface (i.e. left and right side of the rudder), or are there separate actuators for opening/closing the speedbrake and for rotating the entire speedbrake assembly (i.e. both sides) for the rudder function?
The crew operations manual mentions different rate limits and different maximum deflection angles for the rudder and the speedbrake functions, which strongly suggests the latter, but I couldn't find a definite answer.
Thanks a lot!
-
#2013
by
alexw
on 19 Jun, 2011 20:58
-
So, I assume that means that there is zero chance of the orbiter surviving in such a case?
There are hold down bolts, fractured at the moment the SRBs are lit, but if not blown the SRBs will comfortably tear through them anyways. Imagine what the stack will do as it rotates off the gantry. You can work out how many megajoules are in the tankage, but figure the stack is about two kilotons of mostly propellant. And a bit of a BLEVE.
It would be interesting to see the ballistics calculations, but fatalities among the public on the causeway from SRB fragments would seem reasonable.
Semi-related, but is there a public (or L2) list of Shuttle contingency plans?
Yes. This:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/news/flightdatafiles/index.html ... is good reading, particularly the Intact Ascent Aborts and Contingency Aborts handbooks. Fascinating, and terrifying.
-Alex
-
#2014
by
uapyro
on 21 Jun, 2011 21:11
-
I remember hearing somewhere that "the sound from the space shuttle engines and SRB can kill at X distance."
Is that true? If so, what is that distance, or thought to be the distance?
-
#2015
by
padrat
on 22 Jun, 2011 14:18
-
I remember hearing somewhere that "the sound from the space shuttle engines and SRB can kill at X distance."
Is that true? If so, what is that distance, or thought to be the distance?
I think I've heard somewhere around 1500-2000 ft
-
#2016
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 23 Jun, 2011 16:43
-
So, I assume that means that there is zero chance of the orbiter surviving in such a case?
There are hold down bolts, fractured at the moment the SRBs are lit, but if not blown the SRBs will comfortably tear through them anyways. Imagine what the stack will do as it rotates off the gantry. You can work out how many megajoules are in the tankage, but figure the stack is about two kilotons of mostly propellant. And a bit of a BLEVE.
To get nit-picky here, the hold down bolts are actually blown about 0.3 seconds before SRB ignition.
-
#2017
by
AnalogMan
on 23 Jun, 2011 18:47
-
So, I assume that means that there is zero chance of the orbiter surviving in such a case?
There are hold down bolts, fractured at the moment the SRBs are lit, but if not blown the SRBs will comfortably tear through them anyways. Imagine what the stack will do as it rotates off the gantry. You can work out how many megajoules are in the tankage, but figure the stack is about two kilotons of mostly propellant. And a bit of a BLEVE.
To get nit-picky here, the hold down bolts are actually blown about 0.3 seconds before SRB ignition.
This time-line says that they are initiated at the same instant:
-
#2018
by
Mark Dave
on 24 Jun, 2011 13:17
-
What is the aerovent seen on the external tank's intertank used for? Also are there any diagrams or photos of it?
-
#2019
by
AnalogMan
on 24 Jun, 2011 15:31
-
What is the aerovent seen on the external tank's intertank used for? Also are there any diagrams or photos of it?
This is a description of the intertank pressure vents (snipped from the L2 ET Bible)
7.3.1 PRESSURE VENTS
Two vent openings, each with an area of six square inches, are provided at the forward end of the intertank for venting during preflight environmental conditioning and for equalization of internal/external pressures in flight. This 12.6 square-inch area is combined with other penetrations to provide a leak area varying from 54 to 63 square inches to maintain safe oxygen levels during high wind ground operations, and to maintain localized intertank pressures between -1.1 and +3.7 psig during flight. Indeterminate joint leakage is eliminated by sealers and foam insulation used to cover the entire intertank surface as a TPS requirement.
Each vent consists of an elliptical shaped tube. A flange is welded at the start of the bend, and the vent is installed on the intertank skin with the flange on the inside so that the tube extends, between two stringers and to the top surface of the TPS. The tube bend direction is positioned toward the L02 tank to prevent the entry of rain water during prelaunch operations. There is also this description of the intertank conditioning during propellant load:
9.5.1 INTERTANK PURGE
The ET intertank is purged with dry, heated GN2 during propellant loading to prevent condensation of moisture, preclude air ingestion through the intertank vents, and to avert a buildup of hazardous gases and to provide temperature conditioning of the Range Safety System components and other electronics.This simple graphic is the best I could quickly find.
