-
#2800
by
Specifically-Impulsive
on 19 Jan, 2013 00:31
-
Anyone know the angle between vertical and the c/l of the OBSS grapple fixtures?
If you are looking out the aft windows the grapple pin on the forward grapple fixture is rotated 10.5 degrees clockwise from vertical.
I can't post the reference I have for this, but if you go to the JSC FOIA page, get the 135 PDRS checklist, go to the OBSS BERTH procedure, and add up the joint angles at grapple, you should get the same answer (remember that shoulder yaw is -90 so all the pitch joints are in the orbiter y-z plane, and that the port MPM rollout angle is 19.5).
-
#2801
by
DaveS
on 19 Jan, 2013 02:27
-
Anyone know the angle between vertical and the c/l of the OBSS grapple fixtures?
If you are looking out the aft windows the grapple pin on the forward grapple fixture is rotated 10.5 degrees clockwise from vertical.
That is with the starboard MPMs that hold the OBSS in the deployed configuration?
-
#2802
by
Fequalsma
on 20 Jan, 2013 12:10
-
Right, that's why I specifically said "Orbiter attachment plane", and not just "Orbiter". As you point out, the local angle w.r.t. the Orbiter belly will be highly variable (increasing up to 90 deg. at the nose).
The airfoils used for the wing are NACA 0010 (mod) at the root, and NACA 0012-064 (mod) at the tip. The wing angle of incidence (which is fixed w.r.t. the Orbiter coordinate system, and is not equal to angle of attack) is 0.50 degrees per these references:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19850008602_1985008602.pdf, page numbers 303 and 305
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19820065779_1982065779.pdf, page number 56
F=ma
True, but the forward attachment is at the outer mold line while the aft attachments are recessed in the umbilical wells so the angle in regards to the belly of the orbiter (which is slightly convex anyways) would be greater than 1 deg. Does anyone know the actual angle of attack of the wings in relation to the ET CL?
-
#2803
by
Specifically-Impulsive
on 21 Jan, 2013 22:19
-
Anyone know the angle between vertical and the c/l of the OBSS grapple fixtures?
If you are looking out the aft windows the grapple pin on the forward grapple fixture is rotated 10.5 degrees clockwise from vertical.
That is with the starboard MPMs that hold the OBSS in the deployed configuration?
Correct.
-
#2804
by
DaveS
on 22 Jan, 2013 07:27
-
Anyone know the angle between vertical and the c/l of the OBSS grapple fixtures?
If you are looking out the aft windows the grapple pin on the forward grapple fixture is rotated 10.5 degrees clockwise from vertical.
That is with the starboard MPMs that hold the OBSS in the deployed configuration?
Correct.
Thanks.
-
#2805
by
DaveS
on 22 Jan, 2013 07:30
-
Another question: Anyone know if the aft orbiter attachments are bolted when the orbiter is mated to the OTS or if they're unbolted and the orbiter just rests on the attachments when it is mated to the OTS?
-
#2806
by
wolfpack
on 22 Jan, 2013 13:12
-
Another question: Anyone know if the aft orbiter attachments are bolted when the orbiter is mated to the OTS or if they're unbolted and the orbiter just rests on the attachments when it is mated to the OTS?
I'm going to hazard a guess and say bolted. Remember the thing has wings! Wind gusts have been known to relocate aircraft.
-
#2807
by
DaveS
on 22 Jan, 2013 13:18
-
Another question: Anyone know if the aft orbiter attachments are bolted when the orbiter is mated to the OTS or if they're unbolted and the orbiter just rests on the attachments when it is mated to the OTS?
I'm going to hazard a guess and say bolted. Remember the thing has wings! Wind gusts have been known to relocate aircraft.
Yes but we're not talking tornado/hurricane winds here. They never moved an orbiter with even TS speeds observed. Even sitting on its landing gear in 30kt winds won't move it much.
-
#2808
by
spacecane
on 24 Jan, 2013 10:55
-
Why was the OTS needed? Couldn't a lot of development and operational money have been saved by just towing the orbiters on their landing gear? When they went from the OPF to the VAB they could lift them with the cranes and then retract the gear. Had this method been designed from the get go you would think that provisions could have been designed in to allow the gear closeout procedure to be done in the VAB like that.
-
#2809
by
Jim
on 24 Jan, 2013 11:05
-
Why was the OTS needed? Couldn't a lot of development and operational money have been saved by just towing the orbiters on their landing gear? When they went from the OPF to the VAB they could lift them with the cranes and then retract the gear. Had this method been designed from the get go you would think that provisions could have been designed in to allow the gear closeout procedure to be done in the VAB like that.
It was needed for VAFB for the 20 mile trip between OMCF and SLC-6. Before Challenger, the orbiters were towed. Once the OTS was available, it was shipped to KSC. Using the OTS at KSC, they found they could save time and money and have a safer ops by closing out the gear in the OPF, where there was better access and the orbiter is suspended by GSE. The op in the VAB required personnel to be under a suspended load.
-
#2810
by
wolfpack
on 24 Jan, 2013 11:08
-
Why was the OTS needed? Couldn't a lot of development and operational money have been saved by just towing the orbiters on their landing gear? When they went from the OPF to the VAB they could lift them with the cranes and then retract the gear. Had this method been designed from the get go you would think that provisions could have been designed in to allow the gear closeout procedure to be done in the VAB like that.
It was needed to transport the Orbiters from the final assembly building at Palmdale to Edwards Air Force Base for ferry flights to KSC. Also would have been needed for operations at VAFB, I believe.
Initially Orbiters were towed on their landing gear at KSC from OPF to VAB. Then the "tow-around" tires were exchanged with flight tires in the VAB. Once the transporter was no longer needed (Palmdale got VAFB's MDD), KSC got it. I believe KSC has Vandenberg's transporter, and the Palmdale one stayed in Cali, only recently to be used in OV-105's parade.
-
#2811
by
DaveS
on 24 Jan, 2013 11:12
-
Why was the OTS needed? Couldn't a lot of development and operational money have been saved by just towing the orbiters on their landing gear? When they went from the OPF to the VAB they could lift them with the cranes and then retract the gear. Had this method been designed from the get go you would think that provisions could have been designed in to allow the gear closeout procedure to be done in the VAB like that.
This is how it was done until 1989.
The OTS was originally designed to be used at Vandenberg AFB to transport the orbiter the 21 miles (33.6 km) from the OMCF on North Base to the pad located on South Base. The terrain at Vandenberg is very hilly so in order to save on the orbiter's critical landing gear and tires, a self powered transporter was designed. The manufacturer of the OTS was Commetto of Turin, Italy.
After the Air Force decided to withdraw from active participation in the shuttle program, SLC-6 was mothballed and some of the shuttle equipment was brought to KSC including the OTS and the workstands needed to convert the OMRF at KSC into the third OPF, OPF-3.
The OTS allows TPS and hydraulic operations to be completed in the OPF prior to rollover. The OPF is much more suited for this as it has all of the equipment and is climate controlled.
-
#2812
by
Jim
on 24 Jan, 2013 11:14
-
It was needed to transport the Orbiters from the final assembly building at Palmdale to Edwards Air Force Base for ferry flights to KSC. Also would have been needed for operations at VAFB, I believe.
Initially Orbiters were towed on their landing gear at KSC from OPF to VAB. Then the "tow-around" tires were exchanged with flight tires in the VAB. Once the transporter was no longer needed (Palmdale got VAFB's MDD), KSC got it. I believe KSC has Vandenberg's transporter, and the Palmdale one stayed in Cali, only recently to be used in OV-105's parade.
There was only one OTS and it was at VAFB and not Palmdale. It was a transport frame used at Palmdale and the OV-105 parade.
Also, the device moved from VAFB to Palmdale was the Orbiter Lifting Frame vs an MDD.
-
#2813
by
psloss
on 24 Jan, 2013 16:09
-
-
#2814
by
spacecane
on 25 Jan, 2013 02:45
-
What was the difference between the OLF and the MDD? Was it just the work platforms? Was there anything that could be done with the MDD that couldn't with the OLF?
-
#2815
by
Jim
on 25 Jan, 2013 03:10
-
What was the difference between the OLF and the MDD? Was it just the work platforms? Was there anything that could be done with the MDD that couldn't with the OLF?
The MDD was designed to proved access for servicing an orbiter at DFRC.
-
#2816
by
OV135
on 25 Jan, 2013 13:51
-
-
#2817
by
psloss
on 25 Jan, 2013 15:41
-
-
#2818
by
Fequalsma
on 25 Jan, 2013 23:01
-
I saw this photo over in the STS-135 walkdown thread. To my uncalibrated eye, it looks like the center of the ball fitting is pretty close to the Orbiter OML. But I don't have any drawings to back that up.
F=ma
True, but the forward attachment is at the outer mold line while the aft attachments are recessed in the umbilical wells so the angle in regards to the belly of the orbiter (which is slightly convex anyways) would be greater than 1 deg. Does anyone know the actual angle of attack of the wings in relation to the ET CL?
-
#2819
by
Fequalsma
on 31 Jan, 2013 02:04
-
I found this figure (III-22) in vol. 2 of the SLWT SDH, where the Orbiter OML is shown as a red line. From vol. 1 of the SLWT SDH, the aft ET-Orbiter attachment fitting radius is 5.275 inches. Using this dimension, the scaled distance from the Orbiter OML to the center of EO-2 hemisphere is about 4 inches, and is not on the OML as I thought.
Also, the center of the EO-1 forward ET-Orbiter attachment monoball is about 1 inch inside the Orbiter OML. This dimension is scaled off the figure that AnalogMan posted. However, the sep plane is ~on the OML, as others have noted.
F=ma
I saw this photo over in the STS-135 walkdown thread. To my uncalibrated eye, it looks like the center of the ball fitting is pretty close to the Orbiter OML. But I don't have any drawings to back that up.
F=ma
