-
#2320
by
brahmanknight
on 24 Sep, 2011 05:35
-
Why were the sunshades on the early program Hughes sat deploys open before payload bay door opening?
-
#2321
by
alk3997
on 24 Sep, 2011 14:10
-
Why were the sunshades on the early program Hughes sat deploys open before payload bay door opening?
So as to increase the clearances with the payload bay doors when the payload bay doors were closed. The orbiter was launched with the sunshades open, as well.
Andy
-
#2322
by
vsrinivas
on 26 Sep, 2011 06:25
-
Were the STA aircraft controlled by something like the Shuttle's DPS? Or were the avionics for them completely different?
Thanks,
-
#2323
by
spacecane
on 27 Sep, 2011 15:40
-
2 questions:
1) Did any payload ever use the full length of the payload bay?
2) Why was parallel staging used? Wouldn't it have been more efficient to use series staging so the 2nd stage tank would have been smaller/lighter and a lot of weight could be jettisoned with the first stage separation? Wouldn't it have eliminated the need for SRBs if you had just a normal liquid first stage. Probably would have looked wierd since you'd have the orbiter side mounted to a smaller ET sitting on top of a first stage.
-
#2324
by
Jim
on 27 Sep, 2011 15:46
-
2 questions:
1) Did any payload ever use the full length of the payload bay?
2) Why was parallel staging used? Wouldn't it have been more efficient to use series staging so the 2nd stage tank would have been smaller/lighter and a lot of weight could be jettisoned with the first stage separation? Wouldn't it have eliminated the need for SRBs if you had just a normal liquid first stage. Probably would have looked wierd since you'd have the orbiter side mounted to a smaller ET sitting on top of a first stage.
1. See AXAF
2. No quick answer. See history of shuttle documents or books.
-
#2325
by
spacecane
on 27 Sep, 2011 16:10
-
2 questions:
1) Did any payload ever use the full length of the payload bay?
2) Why was parallel staging used? Wouldn't it have been more efficient to use series staging so the 2nd stage tank would have been smaller/lighter and a lot of weight could be jettisoned with the first stage separation? Wouldn't it have eliminated the need for SRBs if you had just a normal liquid first stage. Probably would have looked wierd since you'd have the orbiter side mounted to a smaller ET sitting on top of a first stage.
1. See AXAF
2. No quick answer. See history of shuttle documents or books.
For number 2 are there any books or documents in particular that focus on this design aspect that you would recommend?
-
#2326
by
alk3997
on 27 Sep, 2011 16:19
-
Were the STA aircraft controlled by something like the Shuttle's DPS? Or were the avionics for them completely different?
Thanks,
The left seat mimic'ed the Shuttle's controls, the right seat was a standard Gulfstream control system (mostly). The Shuttle side was a simulation tied into the STA's flight control. So, there were no GPCs on an STA.
Andy
-
#2327
by
alk3997
on 27 Sep, 2011 16:23
-
2 questions:
1) Did any payload ever use the full length of the payload bay?
2) Why was parallel staging used? Wouldn't it have been more efficient to use series staging so the 2nd stage tank would have been smaller/lighter and a lot of weight could be jettisoned with the first stage separation? Wouldn't it have eliminated the need for SRBs if you had just a normal liquid first stage. Probably would have looked wierd since you'd have the orbiter side mounted to a smaller ET sitting on top of a first stage.
AXAF isn't a bad answer, but there were still some clearances needed for launch vibrations and thermal expansion. This amounted to a few inches. Some of the Spacelab flights, if you include the tunnel to Spacelab (not Hab) and the external pallet (or EDO pallet) could be considered to use the entire payload bay.
A lot of configurations were studied in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The SSMEs were under development when the configuration was selected, so a lot had to do with SSME capabilities (as then planned), including any air-start capability. Three SSMEs alone were not powerful enough to get the vehicle off the pad. So, some time of launch boost was needed.
Andy
-
#2328
by
Jim
on 27 Sep, 2011 16:36
-
AXAF isn't a bad answer, but there were still some clearances needed for launch vibrations and thermal expansion. This amounted to a few inches.
It was the only one I could give on this forum.
As for clearances, that was already accounted for in the 15' dia and 60" length.
-
#2329
by
Jim
on 27 Sep, 2011 16:39
-
Some of the Spacelab flights, if you include the tunnel to Spacelab
The tunnel was only there to move the Spacelab to the back of the payload bay for CG considerations. It wasn't a requirement of the payload.
-
#2330
by
alk3997
on 27 Sep, 2011 17:35
-
Some of the Spacelab flights, if you include the tunnel to Spacelab
The tunnel was only there to move the Spacelab to the back of the payload bay for CG considerations. It wasn't a requirement of the payload.
No tunnel, no Spacelab (the tunnel also included the Spacelab EVA airlock hatch). *If* the tunnel was chargable to the payload then it was considered payload. Now, I just have to find out whether it was charged to payload or not.
Andy
-
#2331
by
Jim
on 27 Sep, 2011 18:16
-
Some of the Spacelab flights, if you include the tunnel to Spacelab
The tunnel was only there to move the Spacelab to the back of the payload bay for CG considerations. It wasn't a requirement of the payload.
No tunnel, no Spacelab (the tunnel also included the Spacelab EVA airlock hatch). *If* the tunnel was chargable to the payload then it was considered payload. Now, I just have to find out whether it was charged to payload or not.
It was charged to the payload.
My point that Spacelab did not need the whole length of payload bay, which is what the original question was about.
-
#2332
by
DaveS
on 28 Sep, 2011 03:17
-
Anyone have any idea of the masses of the SpaceHab RDM and FREESTAR payloads flown on STS-107?
-
#2333
by
alexw
on 28 Sep, 2011 03:55
-
AXAF isn't a bad answer, but there were still some clearances needed for launch vibrations and thermal expansion. This amounted to a few inches.
It was the only one I could give on this forum.
As for clearances, that was already accounted for in the 15' dia and 60" length.
Are you suggesting there was a huge DOD payload?
-Alex
-
#2334
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 28 Sep, 2011 05:07
-
AXAF isn't a bad answer, but there were still some clearances needed for launch vibrations and thermal expansion. This amounted to a few inches.
As for clearances, that was already accounted for in the 15' dia and 60" length.
Hubble was pretty close as well
-
#2335
by
brettreds2k
on 28 Sep, 2011 20:49
-
What will NASA do with the Gulfstream Shuttle Training aircraft now? Its not like its fitted to be used as a regular plane especially with one side of the cockpit a replica shuttle cockpit
-
#2336
by
Jim
on 28 Sep, 2011 21:24
-
What will NASA do with the Gulfstream Shuttle Training aircraft now? Its not like its fitted to be used as a regular plane especially with one side of the cockpit a replica shuttle cockpit
sent to museums
-
#2337
by
Jorge
on 29 Sep, 2011 01:21
-
What will NASA do with the Gulfstream Shuttle Training aircraft now? Its not like its fitted to be used as a regular plane especially with one side of the cockpit a replica shuttle cockpit
sent to museums
One STA has already been sent to the Rick Husband Airport in Amarillo, TX. Don't know where the others are going.
-
#2338
by
DaveS
on 29 Sep, 2011 22:11
-
Anyone have any information on the velocities when the plasma begins to show and fade during entry?
-
#2339
by
sivodave
on 30 Sep, 2011 19:12
-
Hi all.
a question about re-entry. I was wondering if for re-entry there was something similar to DOLILU. I mean, before giving the go no go for deorbit burn, is there anybody designing (or optimizing) the re-entry trajectory based on the wind profile at the landing location? Something similar to what the DOLILU group did but done for re-entry rather then for the ascent.
Thanks
Davide