-
#2500
by
alk3997
on 26 Jan, 2012 14:42
-
This is the transcript..
PAO: Approaching the Heading Alignment Circle, and Discovery will be beginning the sweeping left turn, coming around for runway 15… left bank 45 degrees now, 40.000 feet, on Heading Alignment Circle, normal energy… orbiter systems in good shape, 36,000 feet, .7 mach on the Heading Alignment Circle, bank 77 degrees… now 87 degrees… airspeed about 264 knots, range 8 miles… and they’ve reported the sonic boom at the Cape… on the Heading Alignment Circle airspeed 258, altitude 24,000 feet, range 9 miles…
Yeah he definitely misspoke - I watched the video and my best "GUESS" is he read the numbers for the brake (as in speed brake which might have been opening to 77 percent)...I really have no idea, and I only know enough to make me very dangerous. 
As for your original question, the roll/bank during this part of the TAEM Guidance phase (subsonic, on the HAC, and not flying RTLS guidance limits) is ideally around 45 degrees with guidance limiting roll commands to a maximum of 60 degrees.
While normally bank on the HAC is around 45-ish degrees, high winds at altitude (such as a strong tail wind) may require a larger bank angle.
Mark Kirkman
As Mark said, it was PAO's interpretation of the little bit of information that they had at that time. Remember 51C was in the old MCC and all they had were single TV channels with columns of data (and not always the most useful data). Also it was a DOD flight which limited what could be shown (even during landing). The MCC that we were familiar with at the end of the program had the ability to choose from a lot of data.
-
#2501
by
alk3997
on 26 Jan, 2012 14:44
-
another random question, but does anyone know the launch that Rob Navias commented that the orbiter was "flying down hwy (XXX)" (he was referring to the STS mission number as the "why").
completely random, but i can't find the flight commentary.
thanks!!!
Steer to this location:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19476.msg504345#msg504345
Here is the YouTube link. The comment is made at 3:50 into the video.
Rob has a proclivity for annunciating words that add to the flavor of the moment. In other words, he was just trying to make it sound different than any other launch. And, apparently he succeeded.
During one of the launches, a NASA PAO (I shall leave the name out) said "oh, shoot" in the middle of ascent (I think, first stage ascent) when a different PAO's words got tangled. That was one I always remember and a good reminder of the value of a excellent commentator like Rob Navias.
Andy
-
#2502
by
Mark Dave
on 28 Jan, 2012 20:06
-
I looked at a photo of SSME 0003 and the shape of the bell of the engine looks very different from that of the current SMEs that have flown. Why? I also recall in a documentary this engine or a similar early version identical to 0003 exploded during a test.
-
#2503
by
wolfpack
on 28 Jan, 2012 20:15
-
I looked at a photo of SSME 0003 and the shape of the bell of the engine looks very different from that of the current SMEs that have flown. Why? I also recall in a documentary this engine or a similar early version identical to 0003 exploded during a test.
Was it from the MPTA days? Some of those tests used lower expansion ratio nozzles. Less stress on the engine that way (less thrust, too).
-
#2504
by
Mark Dave
on 29 Jan, 2012 23:31
-
Yep. The engine is painted white in the photo and video of the test.
I guess the nozzle needed to be bigger as that engine design was never used when the shuttle first flew.
It also explains now why Revell has the old 0003 design on it's 1/72 scale model kits of the orbiter.
-
#2505
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 01 Feb, 2012 02:59
-
Not sure if this goes here, but what the heck is the Reusable Launch Vehicle Hangar ?
Also what was the purpose of the OMRCF before it was converted to and OPF, and did NASA intentionally design the facility to be converted to an OPF in the future?
-
#2506
by
Jim
on 01 Feb, 2012 03:06
-
Not sure if this goes here, but what the heck is the Reusable Launch Vehicle Hangar ?
Also what was the purpose of the OMRCF before it was converted to and OPF, and did NASA intentionally design the facility to be converted to an OPF in the future?
It was built for X-34 type testing
OMRCF was non mission work, such as what became OMDP. Any "hangar" that was large enough to hold an Orbiter and with the ability to support some work on the Orbiter could be OPF. The fact that OMCF GSE became available made it easy.
-
#2507
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 03 Feb, 2012 18:13
-
Is November 19, 1985 the correct date for OV-101's arrival at Dulles?
-
#2508
by
alk3997
on 04 Feb, 2012 20:04
-
Is November 19, 1985 the correct date for OV-101's arrival at Dulles?
November 18, 1985 was when OV-101 left KSC for Dulles according to one source. NASM has OV-101 arriving at Dulles on November 16, 1985 and being lowered to the tarmac on November 17, 1985. While NASA has OV-101 departing KSC on a one day flight on November 18, 1985. No references to November 19th were found.
http://blog.nasm.si.edu/2011/06/06/getting-enterprise-ready-for-prime-time/http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/resources/orbiters/enterprise.htmlWho to believe? Well I believe a one day trip for an empty airframe from KSC to Dulles is well within the 747's capabilities. The NASM article includes the date of demate. So, I'd lean towards the NASM work, but maybe a call to NASM would be in order if this is more than a curiousity.
-
#2509
by
sivodave
on 05 Feb, 2012 18:53
-
Hi all.
Question about the star trackers. I know that two different types were used, namely the solid state start tracker and the image dissector tube star tracker.
I'd like to know the advantage of the one type respect the other. Which
one was better? could an orbiter have both types at the same time?
Thanks very much
Regards
Davide
-
#2510
by
DMeader
on 06 Feb, 2012 00:59
-
Hi all.
Question about the star trackers. I know that two different types were used, namely the solid state start tracker and the image dissector tube star tracker.
I'd like to know the advantage of the one type respect the other. Which
one was better? could an orbiter have both types at the same time?
Thanks very much
Regards
Davide
Yes, the two types could be used interchangeably and mixed on the same flight. I suspect the older ones were simply becoming unsupportable due to their age.
-
#2511
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 07 Feb, 2012 02:00
-
Hubble servicing question, on STS-125 the APAS/Docking tunnel was removed from Atlantis' external airlock, yet when Discovery visited on STS-103 (SM-3A) she still had the full docking system. Was this due to the addition of the OBSS on SM-4, or was there more to the story?
-
#2512
by
psloss
on 07 Feb, 2012 16:23
-
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.)
My memory must be fading. But, remember the rates are a combined (RSS) of roll, pitch and yaw not to exceed 15 deg / sec (if my memory is still good enough for that number). I don't remember the individual gains changing but that was before my time. The roll did last a lot longer (obviously).
Now that my STS-9 recording is no longer imprisoned on Betamax tape, I found a reasonable source for the change at that time. Richard Covey, who was providing astronaut 'color' for CNN during STS-9, noted on launch day that the roll rate was changed from 10 deg/sec to 15.
-
#2513
by
sivodave
on 08 Feb, 2012 09:06
-
Quote from: sivodave on 02/05/2012 07:53 PMHi all.
Question about the star trackers. I know that two different types were used, namely the solid state start tracker and the image dissector tube star tracker.
I'd like to know the advantage of the one type respect the other. Which
one was better? could an orbiter have both types at the same time?
Thanks very much
Regards
Davide
Yes, the two types could be used interchangeably and mixed on the same flight. I suspect the older ones were simply becoming unsupportable due to their age.
Thanks DMeader. Just another question: in what sense the only ones became unsupportable? Unsupportable from a software point of view or maintenance? If they were unsupportable, why they flew with both type together?
Thanks very much
Regards
Davide
-
#2514
by
Mark Dave
on 08 Feb, 2012 14:37
-
On Columbia, OV-102. Why was she the only one to get the extra black tiles on the wing chines while the rest of the fleet didn't? What purpose did it serve?
-
#2515
by
Namechange User
on 08 Feb, 2012 14:41
-
On Columbia, OV-102. Why was she the only one to get the extra black tiles on the wing chines while the rest of the fleet didn't? What purpose did it serve?
Initial thermal analysis showed the chine area to be warmer than it actually turned out to be. Columbia had the black FRSI for this reason.
When it was determined it wasn't really needed, there was no real reason to change the vehicle and it gave the "flagship" a distinctive look as well.
-
#2516
by
Jim
on 08 Feb, 2012 14:42
-
On Columbia, OV-102. Why was she the only one to get the extra black tiles on the wing chines while the rest of the fleet didn't? What purpose did it serve?
Early preflight data indicted it was needed and it was found that it wasn't
-
#2517
by
wolfpack
on 08 Feb, 2012 14:42
-
On Columbia, OV-102. Why was she the only one to get the extra black tiles on the wing chines while the rest of the fleet didn't? What purpose did it serve?
I believe that was black paint over the lower temperature white tiles, not the high temperature black tiles. The reason was for some early on "guestimates" at heating, turned out to be unnecessary but was kept anyway, making 102 stand out from the rest of the fleet. 102 had plenty of other distinctive markings as well (SILTS pod and black tiles atop the vertical stabilizer being the 2nd most noticeable difference).
-
#2518
by
Wayne Hale
on 08 Feb, 2012 21:00
-
The black chine areas on Columbia were to minimize on-orbit thermal stresses on the underlying structure; later vehicles incorporated structural changes that made the extra thermal absorption unnecessary.
-
#2519
by
Zpoxy
on 09 Feb, 2012 21:55
-
On Columbia, OV-102. Why was she the only one to get the extra black tiles on the wing chines while the rest of the fleet didn't? What purpose did it serve?
I believe that was black paint over the lower temperature white tiles, not the high temperature black tiles. The reason was for some early on "guestimates" at heating, turned out to be unnecessary but was kept anyway, making 102 stand out from the rest of the fleet. 102 had plenty of other distinctive markings as well (SILTS pod and black tiles atop the vertical stabilizer being the 2nd most noticeable difference).
Correct, I watched it being applied. At the time we were told it was to protect the midbody hydraulic lines. But there aren't any hydraulic lines in that part of the wing. So I would guess that Mr. Hale's explanation is correct.
