-
#2680
by
DaveS
on 31 Aug, 2012 16:22
-
Anyone know the angle between vertical and the c/l of the OBSS grapple fixtures?
-
#2681
by
alk3997
on 01 Sep, 2012 17:39
-
Hi All.
Quick one: I know that Endeavour was the first Orbiter to have the GPS system on board. Had also all the other Orbiters (Columbia included) received the GPS systems?
Thanks very much
Davide
Davide, that's a more difficult question than you might think.
The way the GPS (MAGR) was put onboard was that the orbiters first had a GPS unit put in a locker and a PGSC recorded the data from the GPS for post-flight analysis. This started with just on-orbit and proceeded to ascent/entry data collection (which meant we had to park the PGSC's spinning hard drive and use a solid state drive long before those became popular). This level of testing was done in the mid-1990s.
The next step was to allow the BFS to see the GPS data and then have that shipped to the ground as part of the BFS telemetry. This was followed by incorporating the GPS data into PASS on-orbit only. It was then we hit our first real issue in 1998. That showed the various software (PASS and GPS) needed some work and so it was a few years before the MAGR-3S was ready to be used in PASS again.
The original intent was that all three (really at that time, four) vehicles would get three-string GPS and the TACANs would be removed. However, PASS and BFS software allowed for no GPS, 1 GPS/3 TACANs and 3 GPS/no TACAN configurations (the configuration had to be programmed into that flight's software). So, once the MAGR-3S was being used the initial vehicles received one GPS and OV-105 during her final KSC OMDP received MEDS and a 3 string GPS configuration. Had long OMDPs been available for the other vehicles, they would have also received a 3-string GPS configuration.
So to say that OV-105 was the first to get GPS is incorrect. It is correct, however, to say that OV-105 was the first to get three string GPS and the first to fly entry using GPS units instead of TACANs.
Besides my memory, I'll list this as a reference in case you need more details:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4570031&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fiel5%2F4557992%2F4569960%2F04570031.pdf%3Farnumber%3D4570031Andy
-
#2682
by
brahmanknight
on 05 Sep, 2012 06:07
-
Why did the pilot take over flying part of the Heading Alignment Cone? Is it just to give the pilot experience flying the shuttle?
-
#2683
by
mogso
on 09 Sep, 2012 20:23
-
Hi all
Who knows where to take the drawings are the commander seat drive
Thank you!
-
#2684
by
Chandonn
on 09 Sep, 2012 22:52
-
Hi all
Who knows where to take the drawings are the commander seat drive
Thank you!
Um.... WHAT?
-
#2685
by
mogso
on 10 Sep, 2012 22:13
-
Hi all
Who knows where to take the drawings are the commander seat drive
Thank you!
Um.... WHAT?
"The commander and pilot can move their seats along the orbiter's Z (vertical) and X (longitudinal) axes so they can reach and see controls better during the ascent and entry phases of flight. Seat movement for each axis is provided by a single ac motor. The total travel distance for the Z and X axes is 10 and 5 inches, respectively..." As to look at this motor? Drawing, etc.
-
#2686
by
brahmanknight
on 12 Sep, 2012 08:19
-
-
#2687
by
brahmanknight
on 12 Sep, 2012 17:17
-
Thanks, Jorge.
Looking at the HUD in the STS 108 landing video, it appears the ceiling was 6000 feet or lower.
-
#2688
by
spacecane
on 15 Sep, 2012 01:47
-
What parts/systems of the Orbiter were actually reusable as opposed to rebuildable? To start the list obviously the primary structure and TPS (even though it required a lot of inspection) would be considered reusable.
I qualify reusable as systems that only required inspection, minor repair and refueling (if applicable) vs. systems that had to be disassembled and have major work done between flights.
-
#2689
by
Jim
on 15 Sep, 2012 02:03
-
What parts/systems of the Orbiter were actually reusable as opposed to rebuildable? To start the list obviously the primary structure and TPS (even though it required a lot of inspection) would be considered reusable.
I qualify reusable as systems that only required inspection, minor repair and refueling (if applicable) vs. systems that had to be disassembled and have major work done between flights.
The whole orbiter, except for engines
-
#2690
by
wolfpack
on 15 Sep, 2012 15:03
-
The whole orbiter, except for engines
Tires. MLG's once, nose twice, right?
-
#2691
by
spacecane
on 17 Sep, 2012 10:00
-
What parts/systems of the Orbiter were actually reusable as opposed to rebuildable? To start the list obviously the primary structure and TPS (even though it required a lot of inspection) would be considered reusable.
I qualify reusable as systems that only required inspection, minor repair and refueling (if applicable) vs. systems that had to be disassembled and have major work done between flights.
The whole orbiter, except for engines
If that's the case, what was it that made the turn around processing take so much longer than the ordiginal plan? Was it just the TPS inspection/repair process?
-
#2692
by
Jim
on 17 Sep, 2012 11:31
-
If that's the case, what was it that made the turn around processing take so much longer than the ordiginal plan? Was it just the TPS inspection/repair process?
You had most of it: "inspection, minor repair and refueling" and include testing and payload bay reconfiguring. As part of "refueling" the OMS and RCS pods were removed. As for the middeck, all the lockers and crew accommodations were removed after each flight.
-
#2693
by
wolfpack
on 17 Sep, 2012 17:39
-
If that's the case, what was it that made the turn around processing take so much longer than the ordiginal plan? Was it just the TPS inspection/repair process?
Engines came out after each flight, too. IIRC, Block-III SSME's were supposed to be able to stay installed between flights. Not sure how many flights, though.
-
#2694
by
wolfpack
on 21 Sep, 2012 18:11
-
Is there any archived video of SSME development, specifically some of the early-on test stand failures?
-
#2695
by
spacecane
on 24 Sep, 2012 10:28
-
How much LH2 and LO2 were stored on board for fuel cells/water generation and where were the tanks?
Also, how were they insulated to keep the liquids from evaporating when the Orbiter was in the sun?
Last, did the shuttle dump wastewater/urine like Apollo or store it like an airliner?
-
#2696
by
Jim
on 24 Sep, 2012 11:41
-
How much LH2 and LO2 were stored on board for fuel cells/water generation and where were the tanks?
Also, how were they insulated to keep the liquids from evaporating when the Orbiter was in the sun?
Last, did the shuttle dump wastewater/urine like Apollo or store it like an airliner?
"Cryogenic hydrogen and oxygen are stored in a supercritical condition in double-walled, thermally insulated spherical tanks with a vacuum annulus between the inner pressure vessel and outer shell of the tank. Each tank has heaters to add energy to the reactants during depletion to control pressure. Each tank is capable of measuring quantity remaining.
The tanks are grouped in sets consisting of one hydrogen and one oxygen tank. The number of tank sets installed depends on the specific mission requirement. Up to five tank sets can be installed. The five tank sets are all installed in the midfuselage under the payload bay liner.
The oxygen tanks are identical and consist of inner pressure vessels of Inconel 718 and outer shells of aluminum 2219. The inner vessel is 33.43 inches in diameter and the outer shell is 36.8 inches in diameter. Each tank has a volume of 11.2 cubic feet and stores 781 pounds of oxygen. .........
The hydrogen tanks also are identical. Both the inner pressure vessel and the outer shell are constructed of aluminum 2219. The inner vessel's diameter is 41.51 inches and the outer shell's is 45.5 inches. The volume of each tank is 21.39 cubic feet, and each stores 92 pounds of hydrogen."
In this location, they were shielded from the sun.
Yes, water dumps were performed.
-
#2697
by
zt
on 24 Sep, 2012 13:24
-
I didn't know the shuttle had more than a meter of space between its bottom and the bottom of the payload bay. Are there publicly available diagrams?
-
#2698
by
wolfpack
on 24 Sep, 2012 19:41
-
I didn't know the shuttle had more than a meter of space between its bottom and the bottom of the payload bay. Are there publicly available diagrams?
Look for a book called "The Space Shuttle Operator's Manual". It's probably out of print, but someone will have a copy. I've had mine since I was about an 8-year old kid. It's so dated it even has the STS-1 terminal count, which had me confused for years as to when the main engines actually start!
But I do recall lots of diagrams (exploded and otherwise), dimensions, weights, etc. It's a very decent reference, even if it is 1980's memorabilia.
-
#2699
by
Jim
on 24 Sep, 2012 19:42
-
