-
#2240
by
wolfpack
on 25 Aug, 2011 14:56
-
STS-135's boosters were a couple of years old, right? Where are the segments stored? At KSC? How did they get to the VAB? I figure a segment has to weigh roughly 1/3 of the total, so say 400,000 lbs? I don't see rail lines leading to the VAB. And, no offense to Mike Rowe, but I don't think the F-150 is going to tow that around. 
The SRM segments are stored in the two Surge facilities north of the VAB once they have completed processing in the Rotation, Processing and Surge Facility(RPSF).
This photo shows right aft segment for STS-121 being transported from one of the Surge facilities to the VAB for stacking: http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/images/large/06pd0108.jpg
This building (green arrow)? I think I can see the yellow/orange transporter platforms parked there. I'm guessing the building only holds one pair of boosters, right?
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=28%C2%B035'35.02%22N,+80%C2%B039'12.30%22W&aq=&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=64.241198,134.912109&vpsrc=6&ie=UTF8&ll=28.591371,-80.651053&spn=0.008874,0.016469&t=h&z=17
-
#2241
by
Jim
on 25 Aug, 2011 15:00
-
The other surge building is to the left, above the "A" and the RPSF is to the left, above "Launcher Road"
-
#2242
by
wolfpack
on 25 Aug, 2011 15:11
-
The other surge building is to the left, above the "A" and the RPSF is to the left, above "Launcher Road"
Got it. So you can have 4 boosters (2 pair) on site at once?
The RPSF has the rail lines running through it, right? What work gets done at KSC versus elsewhere? Elsewhere was out west, wasn't it?
-
#2243
by
Jim
on 25 Aug, 2011 15:16
-
1. Got it. So you can have 4 boosters (2 pair) on site at once?
2. The RPSF has the rail lines running through it, right? What work gets done at KSC versus elsewhere? Elsewhere was out west, wasn't it?
1. more, the RPSF can store some
2. All the SRB assembly work is at KSC.
-
#2244
by
VB94
on 29 Aug, 2011 11:49
-
Two linguistic questions...
1)What is the actual definition of the term "close-out"? Does it refer to the final preparations done in a specific part of the orbiter (e.g. aft or crew compartment) before it is closed for flight?
2)Why are key members of the launch team called "test conductors" even though they do a lot more than just supervising tests?
Thanks!
-
#2245
by
Namechange User
on 29 Aug, 2011 12:34
-
Two linguistic questions...
1)What is the actual definition of the term "close-out"? Does it refer to the final preparations done in a specific part of the orbiter (e.g. aft or crew compartment) before it is closed for flight?
2)Why are key members of the launch team called "test conductors" even though they do a lot more than just supervising tests?
Thanks!
1. Essentially, that is the correct definition
2. OTCs (Orbiter Test Conductors) essentially run the operations being performed on the vehicle. In a way, you can correlate their role to that of Flight Director in Mission Control.
-
#2246
by
Jim
on 29 Aug, 2011 13:09
-
Two linguistic questions...
1)What is the actual definition of the term "close-out"? Does it refer to the final preparations done in a specific part of the orbiter (e.g. aft or crew compartment) before it is closed for flight?
2)Why are key members of the launch team called "test conductors" even though they do a lot more than just supervising tests?
Thanks!
1. It is applicable to any spacecraft or launch vehicle
2. It goes back to the days when all work done on space vehicles were performed via "test" procedures. For ELV's, test conductors become launch conductors on launch day. Spacecraft always have test conductors because they supervise electric testing.
-
#2247
by
JayP
on 29 Aug, 2011 15:01
-
Two linguistic questions...
1)What is the actual definition of the term "close-out"? Does it refer to the final preparations done in a specific part of the orbiter (e.g. aft or crew compartment) before it is closed for flight?
1. Essentially, that is the correct definition
In addition "close out" also refers to the fact that there is no more access allowed to that system or area. For instance, the close out procedure for the orbiters wings include placing kapton tape strips across the access openings in the wing spars so that no one can crawl thru them without removing the tape. That way, they know that nothing in there has changed on launch day.
-
#2248
by
VB94
on 29 Aug, 2011 17:23
-
Thanks to all of you for your answers!
-
#2249
by
vsrinivas
on 31 Aug, 2011 01:39
-
If I understand correctly, the Shuttle had an autoland system that was meant to be tested on STS53, but wasn't. Was it ever used?
-
#2250
by
Jorge
on 31 Aug, 2011 02:06
-
If I understand correctly, the Shuttle had an autoland system that was meant to be tested on STS53, but wasn't. Was it ever used?
No.
-
#2251
by
alk3997
on 31 Aug, 2011 04:14
-
If I understand correctly, the Shuttle had an autoland system that was meant to be tested on STS53, but wasn't. Was it ever used?
I almost wanted to write, "yes, every flight", since every flight the autoland was run in SAIL (OV-095) and the other simulators. PASS had an autoland capability but BFS did not. The PASS capability was available since STS-1. Autoland was used down to 300 feet on STS-3 (I believe the crew flew around the HAC and then went back to auto and then back to CSS at 300 feet).
For STS-53 a detailed test objective (DTO) was written and temporarily approved. The DTO would have had the crew fly both auto and CSS around the HAC and then let the vehicle fly itself to a landing. Braking would have been applied by the crew (because there was no auto-braking available) with brakes and drag chute. Landing would have been at Edwards on a dry lakebed runway.
A special hand-hold was built for the CDR, so he could rest his hand right next to the rotational hand controller (the stick) in case an immediate take-over was needed.
My memory is that we made it to about a month before flight before the inevitible occurred and the DTO was cancelled. The funny thing was that when STS-53 landed, it was diverted to Edwards and clouds blocked the view of the runway down to around 5,000 feet. So, the crew flew guidance all the way around and really didn't have a view of the runway until below the deck. All autoland would have done was to automatically follow guidance rather than the crew doing it.
The Autoland DTO never came up again.
Andy
-
#2252
by
vsrinivas
on 31 Aug, 2011 04:34
-
Oh cool! I didn't realize SAIL still existed. What is its fate post-SSP?
-
#2253
by
Jorge
on 31 Aug, 2011 04:57
-
Oh cool! I didn't realize SAIL still existed. What is its fate post-SSP?
Undecided. I'm hearing abandon-in-place is a leading candidate, since it would be expensive to either move or demolish. If so, it would be the only major shuttle artifact that JSC gets to keep.
-
#2254
by
Jorge
on 31 Aug, 2011 05:00
-
If I understand correctly, the Shuttle had an autoland system that was meant to be tested on STS53, but wasn't. Was it ever used?
I almost wanted to write, "yes, every flight", since every flight the autoland was run in SAIL (OV-095) and the other simulators.
I was tempted to write the same thing for a different reason - autoland guidance was used to drive the HUD flight director symbol and the ADI error needles, even when the DAP was in CSS and the crew was manually flying.
-
#2255
by
alk3997
on 31 Aug, 2011 09:47
-
If I understand correctly, the Shuttle had an autoland system that was meant to be tested on STS53, but wasn't. Was it ever used?
I almost wanted to write, "yes, every flight", since every flight the autoland was run in SAIL (OV-095) and the other simulators.
I was tempted to write the same thing for a different reason - autoland guidance was used to drive the HUD flight director symbol and the ADI error needles, even when the DAP was in CSS and the crew was manually flying.
Not just the HUD but all of the instrumentation. So as long as the crew was flying the guidance needles, they were essentially flying autoland guidance but with the crew providing the control inputs (and the GPCs interpreting the stick movements the same as if guidance had sent control inputs).
And, yes, a (mostly) non-functioning SAIL going to Space Center Houston was the leading candidate last I heard.
-
#2256
by
wolfpack
on 31 Aug, 2011 13:10
-
I almost wanted to write, "yes, every flight", since every flight the autoland was run in SAIL (OV-095) and the other simulators.
I have to ask this...
Were any of you around when Iron Maiden came to JSC?
http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/004178.htmlDid Bruce (he is an airline transport pilot) fly an approach and landing? How did he do? Did he splash an orbiter or not?
-
#2257
by
sivodave
on 05 Sep, 2011 12:00
-
Hi all. A question about the AHMS. I was wondering why it came up on line so late in the program (STS-118 in active mode on all 2 SSMEs)? It seems it was a quite important piece of equipment for the safety of the engines, so why so late.
I was reading an interview with George Hopson from the JSC oral history project and he says that the reason for developping the AHMS was that the previous engine controller wasn't able to tell apart noise (not acustic but the electric noise in the wires) from the real patter of the pump vibrations and therefore was it be in active mode we would have seen many engines shut down during ascent. For this reason the control on the vibrations was never flown in active mode. So once again I'm wondering why they didn't solve this problem earlier?
thanks
Davide
-
#2258
by
alk3997
on 05 Sep, 2011 13:46
-
Hi all. A question about the AHMS. I was wondering why it came up on line so late in the program (STS-118 in active mode on all 2 SSMEs)? It seems it was a quite important piece of equipment for the safety of the engines, so why so late.
I was reading an interview with George Hopson from the JSC oral history project and he says that the reason for developping the AHMS was that the previous engine controller wasn't able to tell apart noise (not acustic but the electric noise in the wires) from the real patter of the pump vibrations and therefore was it be in active mode we would have seen many engines shut down during ascent. For this reason the control on the vibrations was never flown in active mode. So once again I'm wondering why they didn't solve this problem earlier?
thanks
Davide
Three reasons - one, the technology didn't exist much earlier than the late 1990s (high speed DSP chips that could withstand sitting on top of an SSME). The software also takes time to create, which is after the requirements are made and approved.
Two, we didn't want to fly anything that we weren't sure about how it would work. Testing takes time.
Adding AHMS and having it shutdown a perfectly good engine would have been very bad. So, the software was developed and tested on the bench, then tested on the test stand, then tested while riding on the SSME but unable to control, then tested while able do some control and then finally full active mode. It took a lot of iterations before it flew actively.
And, three, getting the money allocated to create AHMS. Money comes from Congress and allocating money also takes time.
Andy
-
#2259
by
Specifically-Impulsive
on 05 Sep, 2011 18:43
-
So once again I'm wondering why they didn't solve this problem earlier?
It wasn't for lack of trying. Columbia had a VIB SHUT DOWN ENABLE/INHIBIT switch on the center console but as you say the system was never used in active mode. Later there was FASCOS (maybe FASCOS II?) for Flight Accelerometer Safety Cut-Off System but again, never used in active mode. As Andy said, finally technology and funding caught up with the requirements. AHMS does near real time fast Fourier transforms to distinguish real problems from noise. None of the precursor systems were that smart and the chance of a 'false alarm' shutdown was deemed too great.
