-
#2540
by
spacecane
on 07 Mar, 2012 19:55
-
What are the dimensions of the middeck LxWxH?
Where did they put the removeable seats during the mission? Were the 2 seats behind the PLT and CDR on the flight deck removed while in orbit as well?
-
#2541
by
sivodave
on 08 Mar, 2012 14:12
-
What are the dimensions of the middeck LxWxH?
Where did they put the removeable seats during the mission? Were the 2 seats behind the PLT and CDR on the flight deck removed while in orbit as well?
I don't remember the middeck dimensions, but I can tell you that the removable seats were stored in the cabin, in some of the middeck lockers while the pilots seats where left where they were for the all duration of the flight.
if you have a look [link=http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/390651main_shuttle_crew_operations_manual.pdf] here [/link] you can find more info about it.
Davide
-
#2542
by
sivodave
on 08 Mar, 2012 14:13
-
Hi all.
A question of orbital mechanics. When the Shuttle had to perform OMS burns for reaching a target (ISS, satellite, HST, etc…), was the burn calculated for accomplishing a Hohmann transfer (that’s to say an elliptic orbital transfer) or was instead a Lambert solution (that’s to say a transfer that required more energy then a Hohmann transfer?
Thanks very much
Davide
-
#2543
by
Liryc
on 09 Mar, 2012 08:32
-
-
#2544
by
wolfpack
on 10 Mar, 2012 17:48
-
Were the Flight Readiness Firings done with inert SRB's or loaded SRB's?
And (this could possibly belong in the SRB Q&A thread), what is an inert SRB? Just the empty casings, or loaded with inert mass to simulate propellant?
-
#2545
by
DaveS
on 10 Mar, 2012 17:54
-
Were the Flight Readiness Firings done with inert SRB's or loaded SRB's?
And (this could possibly belong in the SRB Q&A thread), what is an inert SRB? Just the empty casings, or loaded with inert mass to simulate propellant?
The FRFs were done with a complete and ready flight-stack. Only things changed between the FRF and the launch were the SSMEs.
-
#2546
by
Jim
on 10 Mar, 2012 17:56
-
loaded SRM's
Inert SRM's have the rubber fuel compound but no oxidizer (AP)
-
#2547
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 11 Mar, 2012 17:57
-
Did SLC-6 have the centaur Umbilical system when cancelled, or was it planned to be added after a few launches?
-
#2548
by
DaveS
on 11 Mar, 2012 18:09
-
Did SLC-6 have the centaur Umbilical system when cancelled, or was it planned to be added after a few launches?
No Centaur servicing equipment at SLC-6 when the launches were cancelled.
-
#2549
by
Jim
on 11 Mar, 2012 19:16
-
Did SLC-6 have the centaur Umbilical system when cancelled, or was it planned to be added after a few launches?
No Centaur servicing equipment at SLC-6 when the launches were cancelled.
Or planned. It was only studied.
-
#2550
by
alk3997
on 12 Mar, 2012 20:15
-
Did SLC-6 have the centaur Umbilical system when cancelled, or was it planned to be added after a few launches?
Don't forget the lift capability would have been limited for polar orbits and this was before the superlightweight tank. So, a massive fueled Centaur would have taken away from what payload weight was available. Also once already in a low Earth polar orbit, what would you have used Centaur for?
-
#2551
by
sivodave
on 12 Mar, 2012 21:51
-
Hi all.
A question about the Space Shuttle final approach during rendezvous. With reference to the attached drawing I don’t understand the difference between an approach along the +V bar and an inertial approach. Which are the differences and how it was possible to fly them?
Thanks very much
Davide
-
#2552
by
Jorge
on 12 Mar, 2012 21:55
-
Hi all.
A question about the Space Shuttle final approach during rendezvous. With reference to the attached drawing I don’t understand the difference between an approach along the +V bar and an inertial approach. Which are the differences and how it was possible to fly them?
In a +Vbar approach the orbiter was maintained in a tail-to-Earth attitude after arrival on the +Vbar. In an inertial approach the orbiter was maintained in inertial attitude hold throughout the approach. Piloting techniques were similar; the CDR would maintain a prescribed range-rate profile and keep the target above the payload bay.
-
#2553
by
sivodave
on 12 Mar, 2012 22:08
-
In a +Vbar approach the orbiter was maintained in a tail-to-Earth attitude after arrival on the +Vbar. In an inertial approach the orbiter was maintained in inertial attitude hold throughout the approach. Piloting techniques were similar; the CDR would maintain a prescribed range-rate profile and keep the target above the payload bay.
Thanks for the answer. However I was wondering why the two curves in the diagram are different. My thinking is that with an intertial attitude flown along the +V Bar the orbiter would have then approached the target with not the right relative attitude. Was that the case?
Thanks
Davide
-
#2554
by
Jorge
on 12 Mar, 2012 22:12
-
In a +Vbar approach the orbiter was maintained in a tail-to-Earth attitude after arrival on the +Vbar. In an inertial approach the orbiter was maintained in inertial attitude hold throughout the approach. Piloting techniques were similar; the CDR would maintain a prescribed range-rate profile and keep the target above the payload bay.
Thanks for the answer. However I was wondering why the two curves in the diagram are different. My thinking is that with an intertial attitude flown along the +V Bar the orbiter would have then approached the target with not the right relative attitude. Was that the case?
Correct.
-
#2555
by
Jim
on 12 Mar, 2012 22:16
-
Did SLC-6 have the centaur Umbilical system when cancelled, or was it planned to be added after a few launches?
Don't forget the lift capability would have been limited for polar orbits and this was before the superlightweight tank. So, a massive fueled Centaur would have taken away from what payload weight was available. Also once already in a low Earth polar orbit, what would you have used Centaur for?
GSO missions. I funded a DOD study. With FWC SRB, 109 MPL and Centaur G prime 10klb to GSO. But with a loss of 10 feet of payload length vs an east coast mission
-
#2556
by
Proponent
on 13 Mar, 2012 04:09
-
Why go to GSO from VAFB? Do you possibly mean SSO?
-
#2557
by
Jorge
on 13 Mar, 2012 04:16
-
Why go to GSO from VAFB? Do you possibly mean SSO?
From context, I don't think so... payload from VAFB to SSO would have been a lot more than 10 klb.
-
#2558
by
Jim
on 13 Mar, 2012 07:21
-
Why go to GSO from VAFB? Do you possibly mean SSO?
Alternate and backup launch site.
It took a 3 burn bi elliptic transfer orbit
-
#2559
by
sivodave
on 13 Mar, 2012 14:49
-
Hi all.
Another question for the rendezvous expert guys.
After Ti burn, how were the MCs burns computed? If I’ve understood well the MCs burns were targeted by the crew since they had more accurate data available during the last part of the approach.
What I’d like to understand is how each MC burn was computed. Because using Lambert to compute the burn, they had to feed the computers with data regarding the point of arrival, along the trajectory. So, for example, which kind of data they provided for executing MC-1 burn to get to the point for MC-2?
Were always all MCs burns done or sometimes they could skip some burn?
Thanks very much
Davide