-
#2420
by
alk3997
on 29 Nov, 2011 20:03
-
What's the long-term plan for archival of all the Shuttle program electronic documentation and software? Is it going to be accessible for FOIA requests, etc. in the future? (For the stuff that isn't ITAR'd, of course.) Is the archival plan different for different centers/projects/offices/contracts, or is there going to be one massive set of tapes labeled "Shuttle" somewhere?
Still being archived last I heard. But the knowledge capture is obviously long done.
Bottom line is any government record will be officially archived. Delivered software was a government record. Non-government records were not saved.
-
#2421
by
alk3997
on 29 Nov, 2011 20:06
-
Also slightly related, was the OPAD system ever flown?
Not to my knowledge. Mounting something on the nozzle would have had a lot of reviews. You would have needed a long certification period to prove that the system wouldn't shutdown an engine accidentally.
Andy
-
#2422
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 29 Nov, 2011 21:07
-
HELP!!
There is either a post launch or post landing news conference in which Mike Moses comments that "it is easy to go high and easy to go fast, it is hard to go high AND fast".
He makes this comment when answering a question about how private industry will look to experienced NASA engineers to solve the commercial human spaceflight puzzle.
Does anyone know which news conference that was. Like I said, it was either a post launch or post landing...I just don't know which and I don't know what mission it was on.
Any help would be GREATLY appreciated!!!!
Thanks!!!
Jeff
The most I can help you with is that it was a conference I was at personally. I'm thinking it was an STS-131 or STS-132 presser.
-
#2423
by
jeff122670
on 29 Nov, 2011 22:44
-
Thanks Chris....you think it was post launch or post landing?
-
#2424
by
jeff122670
on 29 Nov, 2011 23:40
-
I found it!
STS-130 Post Launch Presser at 33:17
thanks everyone!
-
#2425
by
billshap
on 01 Dec, 2011 03:30
-
It seems every Shuttle maneuver resulted in "good burn, no trim required"...at least over the last 20-plus missions. Were there burns which weren't good and did require trim? If so, how was this done? What would cause a deficient burn?
-
#2426
by
Jorge
on 01 Dec, 2011 04:31
-
It seems every Shuttle maneuver resulted in "good burn, no trim required"...at least over the last 20-plus missions. Were there burns which weren't good and did require trim?
There were many. Usually CAPCOM would hold the call until after the trim was completed, then the call would be worded "good burn, no
further trim required".
If so, how was this done?
Depended on the phase of flight. For rendezvous burns, which had the most stringent trim limits, the CDR would perform an RCS trim by deflecting the THC, axis-by-axis, according to the displayed VGOs. The order in which the axes were trimmed was selected to minimize cross-coupling effects: if VGO Z was negative, the order would be Z-X-Y, otherwise X-Y-Z. If any VGO was greater than 1 fps magnitude, the CDR would select NORM in that axis and hold the THC out of detent until the VGO was less than 1, then select PULSE and pulse the THC, at 0.1 fps per pulse, until the VGO was less than the trim limit (0.2 fps).
What would cause a deficient burn?
Slight OMS gimbal biases, mass property biases, slight differences in Isp, etc. could cause burn residuals even in a normally functioning system, when combined with the "fine count" (last 6 seconds) period where the guidance software went open-loop to prevent large attitude maneuvers at the end of the burn. Then there's outright malfunctions (which thankfully never happened) such as OMS gimbal failure, prop failure, engine failure, GPC/MDM failure, IMU failure, etc.
-
#2427
by
billshap
on 02 Dec, 2011 01:23
-
Great insight, Jorge. Thanks for the prompt response and expert insight. I didn't realize that burns were trimmed onboard before hearing from the ground.
-
#2428
by
STS-85
on 03 Dec, 2011 03:30
-
Any chance you could post those mission designations?
I'd heard STS-51L was STS-33 internally.. was there a STS-22?
Dennis Jenkins has an excellent table on page 300 of the 1997 edition of "Space Shuttle - The History of Developing the NSTS".
The 25th Space Shuttle flight was STS-33 at KSC and STS-51L elsewhere
The 18th Space Shuttle flight was STS-25 at KSC and STS-51G elsewhere
Andy
[/quote]
-
#2429
by
Galactic Penguin SST
on 03 Dec, 2011 03:43
-
Dennis Jenkins has an excellent table on page 300 of the 1997 edition of "Space Shuttle - The History of Developing the NSTS".
The 25th Space Shuttle flight was STS-33 at KSC and STS-51L elsewhere
The 18th Space Shuttle flight was STS-25 at KSC and STS-51G elsewhere
Andy
Any chance you could post those mission designations?
I'd heard STS-51L was STS-33 internally.. was there a STS-22?
See here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=8941.msg164022#msg164022
-
#2430
by
wolfpack
on 06 Dec, 2011 12:46
-
Was their ever any planning EARLY in the program (pre 51-L) to have simultaneous shuttle missions (ie - two orbiters, maybe practicing rendevous maneuvers)? Or would that have been overload for MCC in Houston? I know post STS-107 there were the STS-3XX contingency missions - that's not what I'm thinking about.
-
#2431
by
Mark Dave
on 06 Dec, 2011 15:26
-
-
#2432
by
alk3997
on 06 Dec, 2011 17:40
-
Was their ever any planning EARLY in the program (pre 51-L) to have simultaneous shuttle missions (ie - two orbiters, maybe practicing rendevous maneuvers)? Or would that have been overload for MCC in Houston? I know post STS-107 there were the STS-3XX contingency missions - that's not what I'm thinking about.
We discussed this a while back but basically my belief is that since the MCC only had one of many of the backrooms (MER for instance), it would have been very difficult to do two missions at the same time. One flight would have had attention and the other pretty much left to their own, which is not the way MCC usually operates.
I think Jim had discussed that the original Galileo / Ulysses missions might have overlapped if there had been a launch slip. My memory was that the second mission would also have been delayed but I can't find anything that backs-up my statement.
It would have been a completely different thing if a station had been there and one orbiter was docked. But two free-flying orbiters is a different story (luckily we didn't have to find out with an STS-400).
Andy
-
#2433
by
Prober
on 11 Dec, 2011 18:36
-
Payload schedule question
The X-37 was scheduled to fly inside the payload bay of STS-120. This is schedule was back in 2001. What file name should I be looking for back from 2001 with this schedule? Each piece of the puzzle pulls more files and details of the program. Is there a program code for this payload that I might track and follow the history up to the cancellation?
-
#2434
by
Jim
on 11 Dec, 2011 18:47
-
Payload schedule question
The X-37 was scheduled to fly inside the payload bay of STS-120. This is schedule was back in 2001. What file name should I be looking for back from 2001 with this schedule? Each piece of the puzzle pulls more files and details of the program. Is there a program code for this payload that I might track and follow the history up to the cancellation?
x-37 is program name
-
#2435
by
alk3997
on 12 Dec, 2011 14:21
-
Payload schedule question
The X-37 was scheduled to fly inside the payload bay of STS-120. This is schedule was back in 2001. What file name should I be looking for back from 2001 with this schedule? Each piece of the puzzle pulls more files and details of the program. Is there a program code for this payload that I might track and follow the history up to the cancellation?
It was NASA funded at that time (along with the X-33 orbital and X-34 Mach 10-14 demonstrator). I'd check the NASA budgets at that time.
This is an MSFC press release in the 2003 timeframe (after the ELV shift):
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/pdf/100427main_x37-facts.pdf
-
#2436
by
Mark Dave
on 16 Dec, 2011 13:55
-
I just saw and read in the KSC Media Gallery that Atlantis's robot arm will be eventually used in future spaceflights.
What could the shuttle's RMS be used for without the shuttle?
-
#2437
by
psloss
on 16 Dec, 2011 20:01
-
I just saw and read in the KSC Media Gallery that Atlantis's robot arm will be eventually used in future spaceflights.
What could the shuttle's RMS be used for without the shuttle?
The operative word in the Media Gallery captions was "possible," which means that while the hardware will be protected/preserved, presumably there are no definite (funded) plans to fly it again right now.
-
#2438
by
psloss
on 19 Dec, 2011 11:14
-
I may be remembering it wrong, but I seem to recall hearing that the roll rate for the roll program after liftoff changed (increased) beginning with STS-9 (first high-inclination mission)...anyone know what the roll rates were before and after? (And did they change again?)
Thanks.
(Sorry if repeating this.)
-
#2439
by
sivodave
on 19 Dec, 2011 18:27
-
I all.
I'm getting a bit confused: what's the purpurse of the C&W system when both PASS and SM have fauld detection alarm capabilities? is the C&W something "embedded" in PASS and SM or it is something on its own? If I understand well the C&W system is separated from both PASS and SM.
Thanks a mil
Davide
