-
#260 by Jorge on 26 Jul, 2009 19:41
-
Very stupid (non) reason. (I talk about the reason, not about your answer.)
3) Progress have had other instances of control problems. But then again, the whole ISS is at risk
3) Yes, the whole ISS is at risk and this is o.k., but not for Shuttle. Inconsistent. Shouldn't we stop all docking operations with ISS (Progress and all other vehicles)? Would be safer.
No, it's perfectly consistent. Shuttle is more fault-tolerant and has a human crew controlling it, so its approach is safer than Progress. Period.
No. You completely misunderstood. This has nothing to do with a Shuttle docking. This is about Progress being allowed to dock with ISS only when a Shuttle is not present.
So Progress is is safe enough (redundancy etc.) to dock with ISS, worth tens of billions of dollars, with 6 folks on board. But it is not safe enough to dock when a Shuttle is present at the very same ISS. This is inconsistent. Eighter it is safe enough in both situation or in none. Period. Period.
Incorrect, Analyst. I have explained this before. The auto-abort function in Kurs is designed to protect the station. It does not and cannot account for the presence of a docked shuttle. If Kurs detects a fault condition and auto-aborts, there is no guarantee it will not auto-abort in the direction of the shuttle, and there may be insufficient time or comm for the ISS crew to take over with TORU and avert a collision. -
#261 by ginahoy on 26 Jul, 2009 19:52
-
Progress can be manually docked (with KURS deactivated), but to consider this while shuttle is docked would certainly be off-nominal. The only reason I can imagine this scenario might ever be considered is if the current Progress were carrying a supply or component that suddenly became critical due to some sort of failure. For example, someone accidentally flushed the last packet of hot sauce down the toilet
-
#262 by Analyst on 26 Jul, 2009 20:25
-
Very stupid (non) reason. (I talk about the reason, not about your answer.)
3) Progress have had other instances of control problems. But then again, the whole ISS is at risk
3) Yes, the whole ISS is at risk and this is o.k., but not for Shuttle. Inconsistent. Shouldn't we stop all docking operations with ISS (Progress and all other vehicles)? Would be safer.
No, it's perfectly consistent. Shuttle is more fault-tolerant and has a human crew controlling it, so its approach is safer than Progress. Period.
No. You completely misunderstood. This has nothing to do with a Shuttle docking. This is about Progress being allowed to dock with ISS only when a Shuttle is not present.
So Progress is is safe enough (redundancy etc.) to dock with ISS, worth tens of billions of dollars, with 6 folks on board. But it is not safe enough to dock when a Shuttle is present at the very same ISS. This is inconsistent. Eighter it is safe enough in both situation or in none. Period. Period.
Incorrect, Analyst. I have explained this before. The auto-abort function in Kurs is designed to protect the station. It does not and cannot account for the presence of a docked shuttle.
Sounds like an excuse to me. This system can abort safely from the ever growing station (100m by 70m or so), but can't when the station is yet a little bigger because of a present Shuttle? Or to put it differently: Progress would barely miss PMA-2, or a solar array, but hit the Shuttle if present?
Wouldn't it be much easier if this system assumes the station is a little bigger? Would ease operations.
Analyst -
#263 by Jorge on 26 Jul, 2009 20:43
-
Very stupid (non) reason. (I talk about the reason, not about your answer.)
3) Progress have had other instances of control problems. But then again, the whole ISS is at risk
3) Yes, the whole ISS is at risk and this is o.k., but not for Shuttle. Inconsistent. Shouldn't we stop all docking operations with ISS (Progress and all other vehicles)? Would be safer.
No, it's perfectly consistent. Shuttle is more fault-tolerant and has a human crew controlling it, so its approach is safer than Progress. Period.
No. You completely misunderstood. This has nothing to do with a Shuttle docking. This is about Progress being allowed to dock with ISS only when a Shuttle is not present.
So Progress is is safe enough (redundancy etc.) to dock with ISS, worth tens of billions of dollars, with 6 folks on board. But it is not safe enough to dock when a Shuttle is present at the very same ISS. This is inconsistent. Eighter it is safe enough in both situation or in none. Period. Period.
Incorrect, Analyst. I have explained this before. The auto-abort function in Kurs is designed to protect the station. It does not and cannot account for the presence of a docked shuttle.
Sounds like an excuse to me.
Sounds like ignorance to me.QuoteThis system can abort safely from the ever growing station (100m by 70m or so), but can't when the station is yet a little bigger because of a present Shuttle? Or to put it differently: Progress would barely miss PMA-2, or a solar array, but hit the Shuttle if present?
QuoteWouldn't it be much easier if this system assumes the station is a little bigger? Would ease operations.
It is not a matter of size as much as arrangement. The station is mostly "in front of" the Progress, while the shuttle "breaks the plane". -
#264 by oxford750 on 27 Jul, 2009 01:33
-
Thanks for the correction folks, I missed that.
"For example, someone accidentally flushed the last packet of hot sauce down the toilet"
That is FUNNY
Oxford750 -
#265 by Ron Carlson on 27 Jul, 2009 13:55
-
Edit: Can someone point me to the SODB? I know it is on L2 somewhere, but "search" doesn't find it.
Will these do?
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/sodb/
Shuttle Operational Data Book
These pages are in Portable Document Format (.PDF). You must have the Adobe Acrobat Reader software installed on your computer to view them.
# Left side of the Orbiter
* Moldline penetrations/access panels/markings (296K)
* Exterior finish/external insulation - OV102, Columbia - TBS (144K)
* Exterior finish/external insulation - OV103 (Discovery), OV104 (Atlantis) and OV105 (Endeavour) (176K)
* Structure (288K)
* Structure - pg (248K)
* Structure - sc (200K)
* Component/system location (256K)
# Right side of the Orbiter
* Moldline penetrations/access panels/markings (272K)
* Exterior finish/external insulation - OV102, Columbia - TBS (240K)
* Exterior finish/external insulation - OV103 (Discovery), OV104 (Atlantis), OV105 (Endeavour) (176K)
* Structure (160K)
* Structure - alt (248K)
* Component/system location (280K)
# Top view of the Orbiter
* Moldline penetrations/access panels/markings (176K)
* Exterior finish/external insulation - OV102, Columbia - TBS (440K)
* Exterior finish/external insulation - OV103 (Discovery), OV104 (Atlantis), OV105 (Endeavour) (360K)
* Structure (248K)
* Component/system location (152K)
# Bottom view of the Orbiter
* Moldline penetrations/access panels (128K)
* Exterior finish/external insulation - all vehicles (344K)
* Structure (208K)
* Component/system location (264K)
# Aft view of the Orbiter
* Moldline penetrations/access panels (96K)
* Exterior finish/external insulation - all vehicles< (104K)
# Orbiter structure (512K)
# Wiring locator
* Forward fuselage (584K)
* Mid- and aft fuselage (208K)
* Mid- and aft fuselage - bw (176K)
# Electrical power system component/line locator
* Electrical power system component/line locator (272K)
* Electrical power system component/line locator - cl (312K)
# Environmental control and life support system component/line locator
* Purge/conditioning/air revitalization systems ducting (360K)
* Forward fuselage coolant/air revitalization components (264K)
* Forward fuselage coolant/air revitalization components1 - alt (256K)
* Mid- and aft fuselage coolant system (400K)
* Mid- and aft fuselage coolant system - alt (472K)
# Hydraulic system component/line locator
* Hydraulic system component/line locator (336K)
* Hydraulic system component/line locator - bw (296K)
# Auxiliary power system component/line locator
* Auxiliary power system component/line locator (408K)
* Auxiliary power system component/line locator - bw (304K)
# Reaction control subsystem component/line locator
* Forward reaction control subsystem (896K)
* Forward reaction control subsystem - bw (720K)
* Forward reaction control subsystem - cl (896K)
* Aft reaction control subystem (504K)
* Aft reaction control subystem - bw (392K)
* Aft reaction control subystem - cl (512K)
# Orbital maneuvering system component/line locator
* OMS components/lines (344K)
* OMS components/lines - cl (352K)
* OMS crossfeed (152K)
* OMS crossfeed - bw (144K)
* OMS crossfeed - cl (160K)
# Main propulsion system component/line locator
* Main propulsion system component/line locator (616K)
* Main propulsion system component/line locator - bw (568K)
* Main propulsion system component/line locator - cl (624K)
Ron Carlson -
#266 by oxford750 on 27 Jul, 2009 23:45
-
Hi folks:
1)What is METOX?
2) why were two coverings taken off parts of pieces, then jettisoned into space? Where they dropped?
I mean they could have been brought in and put with the other "space junk.
Thanks
Oxford570 -
#267 by oxford750 on 28 Jul, 2009 08:16
-
Hi folks:
Why is an astronaut always on capcom, I mean they all speak english don't they?
Oxford750 -
#268 by rdale on 28 Jul, 2009 12:23
-
On a similar line - what happened to Aercam (Sprint).
Try your search again - you might have spelled it wrong or something? Boatloads of threads came back when I just tried it using "aercam"
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=3696.0 -
#269 by C5C6 on 28 Jul, 2009 13:26
-
I would really like to look at a diagram showing how did Columbia's Crew Cabin got open in case the ejection seats were used... I just find so hard to imagine how a pressurized, space-worth and TPS-covered cabin could just open a hole in the upper part of the assembly... A photo, an image, a diagram will be appreciated!! Thanks a lot!!
-
#270 by Aobrien on 28 Jul, 2009 13:51
-
Don't think this has been answered yet so here is my question.
Challenger had the major malfunction during its launch. I heard that it was "Blown Up" to keep the debris farther away from the audience or something. Is that true or was the entire explosion just from the O-Ring seal problem?
Thanks -
#271 by Jim on 28 Jul, 2009 14:01
-
Don't think this has been answered yet so here is my question.
Challenger had the major malfunction during its launch. I heard that it was "Blown Up" to keep the debris farther away from the audience or something. Is that true or was the entire explosion just from the O-Ring seal problem?
Thanks
Range safety sent the destruct signals -
#272 by Jorge on 28 Jul, 2009 14:12
-
Don't think this has been answered yet so here is my question.
Challenger had the major malfunction during its launch. I heard that it was "Blown Up" to keep the debris farther away from the audience or something. Is that true or was the entire explosion just from the O-Ring seal problem?
Thanks
The explosion was just from the O-ring seal problem. The SRBs were destroyed almost 40 seconds later by RSO. -
#273 by Jorge on 28 Jul, 2009 14:27
-
Hi folks:
Why is an astronaut always on capcom, I mean they all speak english don't they?
Others have mentioned why it is desirable to centralize comm at one individual on the ground. CAPCOM and FD ensure that comm is properly prioritized and is presented using consistent terminology the crew understands.
Not all ISS capcoms are astronauts; for off-shifts and weekends ISS training leads serve as capcoms. Shuttle CAPCOMs are always astronauts. -
#274 by DaveS on 28 Jul, 2009 14:31
-
No explosion whatsoever. What looks like an explosion cloud is nothing other than burning gases from the destroyed ET.Don't think this has been answered yet so here is my question.
Challenger had the major malfunction during its launch. I heard that it was "Blown Up" to keep the debris farther away from the audience or something. Is that true or was the entire explosion just from the O-Ring seal problem?
Thanks
The explosion was just from the O-ring seal problem. The SRBs were destroyed almost 40 seconds later by RSO.
No shock waves or any other effects associated with an explosion was present. The orbiter broke up due to aerodynamic stresses on the airframe exceeding the capabilities of the airframe.
The SRBs did not show any effects of any explosions. They were intact and continued to burn until the RSO sent the destruct commands. Only then, the SRBs stopped burning. -
#275 by Jorge on 28 Jul, 2009 16:22
-
No explosion whatsoever. What looks like an explosion cloud is nothing other than burning gases from the destroyed ET.Don't think this has been answered yet so here is my question.
Challenger had the major malfunction during its launch. I heard that it was "Blown Up" to keep the debris farther away from the audience or something. Is that true or was the entire explosion just from the O-Ring seal problem?
Thanks
The explosion was just from the O-ring seal problem. The SRBs were destroyed almost 40 seconds later by RSO.
Yes, a deflagration.QuoteNo shock waves or any other effects associated with an explosion was present.
Shock waves are associated with detonations.
The term "explosion" is colloquially applied to both deflagrations and detonations. It is therefore proper to use the term when communicating with non-technical people, as I did here, and will continue to do. -
#276 by mmeijeri on 28 Jul, 2009 16:28
-
Is a shockwave impossible with LOX/LH2 or did it just not happen in the case of Challenger? I was under the impression that the old hypergolic launchers didn't need escape rockets because they couldn't detonate because the propellant couldn't mix properly and would only burn at the two dimensional interface.
-
#277 by ugordan on 28 Jul, 2009 16:41
-
Technically, you can get a detonation with H2/O2 if it's well-mixed and an ignition source is present after they mix. What happened with Challenger is the LOX tank at the top and LH2 tank at the bottom kept the propellants separated, tanks failed at roughly the same time and H2 got ignited fast, before good mixing could occur.
That's one of the reasons why it's hard to predict what a total destructive power of a catastrophic vehicle explosion would be. Saturn V carried some 3000 tons of propellants, a good bit of that was high energy LH2 and yet the estimated explosive power if it got unleashed was estimated at around 0.5 kilotons TNT equivalent. Even though LH2/LOX combo alone has more energy per kg than TNT, IIRC. -
#278 by Danny Dot on 28 Jul, 2009 17:10
-
Is a shockwave impossible with LOX/LH2 or did it just not happen in the case of Challenger? I was under the impression that the old hypergolic launchers didn't need escape rockets because they couldn't detonate because the propellant couldn't mix properly and would only burn at the two dimensional interface.
Tests have shown hydrogen can give you a blast because it can mix then go off. Worst case it probably about 4% will go off in a blast. The Apollo 8 upperstage went off on a test stand an blew everything into little pieces. Good thing it didn't happen on the flight. I looked for photos of the remains of the stage and test stand, but I couldn't find any.
Hypergolics will never mix first. They always ignite at first contact. Gemini did not protect the crew from blast, that is why they could use ejection seats instead of a tower.
Danny Deger -
#279 by Antares on 28 Jul, 2009 18:12
-
That's one of the reasons why it's hard to predict what a total destructive power of a catastrophic vehicle explosion would be.
The best is for radioactive (RTG) launches. They assume a full-stack, inverted powered flight into the ground. NFW it would ever happen, but they do it anyway.
