-
#2760
by
padrat
on 28 Dec, 2012 00:57
-
If I remember correctly we would lose 50-75k gallons each scrub on the average. The wildcard usually being how long between tanking and when the decision was made to detank. As far as normal boiloff, less than 1k a week at pad a, 3-5k a week at B due to the perlite problem. And we usually tried to not go under 250k at all times in the tanks.
-
#2761
by
jeff122670
on 28 Dec, 2012 02:03
-
wow!!!!
-
#2762
by
mgfitter
on 28 Dec, 2012 03:09
-
Thanks for the responses guys, that's exactly what I was curious about!
3-5k a week at B due to the perlite problem.
That reminds me, when I did the Tour de KSC back in October, it looked like both tanks were undergoing work. Has the perlite problem been solved during this down-time?
-MG.
-
#2763
by
padrat
on 28 Dec, 2012 14:02
-
They topped off the perlite back in 2010, 2011 timeframe. Right now they are doing some painting/corrosion control on B. I don't think A has anything going on on it these days....
-
#2764
by
spacecane
on 28 Dec, 2012 22:24
-
3-5k a week at B due to the perlite problem.
What was the perlite problem?
-
#2765
by
padrat
on 30 Dec, 2012 00:43
-
The tank at B had a large void in the annular space which is filled with perlite and under vacuum. There was probably air trapped when they filled it back in the 60's. Then 50 yrs of launches caused it to settle since the void was on the side toward the pad. You can probably see in some pictures a large dark area on the tank from mold growth since it stayed wet from condensation. The boiloff would average around 3k a week unless it was full for launch, then it would jump to 5k or more due to more liquid in contact with the warm area.
-
#2766
by
AnalogMan
on 30 Dec, 2012 13:02
-
-
#2767
by
simmy
on 01 Jan, 2013 13:57
-
-
#2768
by
mtakala24
on 01 Jan, 2013 14:06
-
-
#2769
by
Hoonte
on 02 Jan, 2013 06:40
-
How did the ejection seats worked on the sts-1-4? Where there blow away hatches on top? Are there any drawings / diagrams?
-
#2770
by
JayP
on 03 Jan, 2013 17:00
-
How did the ejection seats worked on the sts-1-4? Where there blow away hatches on top? Are there any drawings / diagrams?
Yes, If you look at an image of Enterprise or Columbia from before STS-9 you can see the out line of them in the tile pattern.
-
#2771
by
JayP
on 03 Jan, 2013 17:06
-
at http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/04/120416-nasa-space-shuttle-discovery-smithsonian-360-tour-panorama-science/ there is something called "Russian Panel". Anyone know what its purpose was?
Thanks!
That is the control panel for the docking system (hint: read the decals: 'hooks', 'latches', 'ring').. . The Docking System was provided by the Russians and made in Russia, I think. The decals and text on the panel are in English, though.
And when the orbiters were preped for museum display, a large warning placard was attached to that panel pertaining to the cadmium plated parts inside of it. The US specs for equipment in the orbiters cabin precluded using cadmium, but the russian design didn't.
-
#2772
by
Fequalsma
on 05 Jan, 2013 01:04
-
CDR and PLT would have sure one heckuva headache if there weren't some kind of separable section...
Seconded on the drawings and diagrams request. Interesting that the blow-away section interfaces with both the crew compartment and the upper forward fuselage.
How did the ejection seats worked on the sts-1-4? Where there blow away hatches on top? Are there any drawings / diagrams?
-
#2773
by
psloss
on 05 Jan, 2013 14:14
-
CDR and PLT would have sure one heckuva headache if there weren't some kind of separable section...
Heh, sounds like one of John Young's old Gemini quotes.
-
#2774
by
DaveS
on 07 Jan, 2013 03:15
-
Anyone know the angle between vertical and the c/l of the OBSS grapple fixtures?
Giving this a bump as I never received an answer on this. This is between the vertical of the OBSS only.
-
#2775
by
Zero-G
on 10 Jan, 2013 00:05
-
If the ET umbilical doors could not be closed and latched after ET separation by the nominal procedure, what other procedures and options were available? Was there some sort of "emergency procedure" to close and latch them manually by astronauts on EVA? (Similar to payload bay doors, which could be closed and latched manually for deorbit by astronauts on EVA.)
It seems very difficult, if not impossible, because the ET umbilical doors are on the orbiter's belly. Obviously there are no handrails there and the RMS could not reach there either. So, how would an EVA crew get there?
I imagine there must have been some back-up procedure in case of failure of the nominal procedure.
-
#2776
by
Jim
on 10 Jan, 2013 00:55
-
There was an EVA procedure.
-
#2777
by
Zero-G
on 10 Jan, 2013 01:22
-
Thanks a lot Jorge and Jim!
-
#2778
by
spacecane
on 10 Jan, 2013 14:17
-
How did the TPS cover the forward attach point after ET sep? In the photos I have seen there isn't an apparent door.
-
#2779
by
Fequalsma
on 10 Jan, 2013 16:39
-
It doesn't; there is no "trap door" like the aft attachments.
F=ma
How did the TPS cover the forward attach point after ET sep? In the photos I have seen there isn't an apparent door.