-
#2820
by
OV135
on 31 Jan, 2013 14:32
-
Are there any diagrams showing the shape of the nozzles of the OMS engines? A side on view? I saw one photo where you can somewhat see the lines of the panels used to build the nozzle.
-
#2821
by
DaveS
on 05 Feb, 2013 16:29
-
DPS question: Is the scratchpad cleared when the crew completes an entry (like ITEM 19 EXEC) or does it remain afterwards?
-
#2822
by
alk3997
on 05 Feb, 2013 18:53
-
DPS question: Is the scratchpad cleared when the crew completes an entry (like ITEM 19 EXEC) or does it remain afterwards?
It remained on the scratchpad until the crew either pressed CLEAR or started a new key sequence.
True for Item Entries. If I remember right, OPS...PRO sequences would be cleared upon execution. How's my memory (it seems like it was much longer ago than it was)?
Also the ITEM entry and OPS/SPEC inputs were not sent to the GPC until a terminator key (EXEC or PRO) was pressed.
Andy
-
#2823
by
Zero-G
on 06 Feb, 2013 14:39
-
What is a "Snoopy Maneuver"?
I read this on page 30 of the STS-96 Press Kit: There is a flight profile drawing of Terminal Phase and TORRA. #7 says: ARRIVE -RBAR NEAR 350 FT AND BEGIN SNOOPY MANEUVER IF NECESSARY
So, what exactly does "Snoopy Maneuver" mean?
And another question: Obviously, this flight profile drawing seems to be from the STS-96 RNDZ Checklist. Is this RNDZ Checklist available for download somewhere? Or any other RNDZ or other Checklists from pre-STS-113 ISS or Mir missions?
-
#2824
by
AnalogMan
on 06 Feb, 2013 14:49
-
...
So, what exactly does "Snoopy Maneuver" mean?
SNOOPY - Shuttle Nose Out-Of-Plane Yaw
-
#2825
by
Zero-G
on 06 Feb, 2013 15:11
-
...
So, what exactly does "Snoopy Maneuver" mean?
SNOOPY - Shuttle Nose Out-Of-Plane Yaw
Wow, that was fast! Thanks a lot!
What is the purpose of this maneuver? Alignment of the Orbiter's X-axis with the PMA?
-
#2826
by
iskyfly
on 06 Feb, 2013 19:05
-
Did any of the retired orbiters have any of their frame / structure inspected / tested to see how well their life expectancy measured up to predictions? I assume that each flight put loads on the structure such that it would fatigue- much like how commercial aircraft are limited to a certain amount of "cycles"?
Thank you.
-
#2827
by
DaveS
on 06 Feb, 2013 20:13
-
Anyone have any data on the clearance between the SRMS End Effector and PLB Camera "B"? This is with the SRMS cradled and stowed and the camera in 0 pan and 0 tilt.
-
#2828
by
Zero-G
on 06 Feb, 2013 23:44
-
...
So, what exactly does "Snoopy Maneuver" mean?
SNOOPY - Shuttle Nose Out-Of-Plane Yaw
Wow, that was fast! Thanks a lot!
What is the purpose of this maneuver? Alignment of the Orbiter's X-axis with the PMA?
On certain launch dates where the beta angle at docking was predicted to be large, the Russians wanted to point the FGB solar arrays out-of-plane for better power generation during approach. This required a 90 degree shuttle yaw to keep the docking mechanism clocked properly. The yaw would have been performed at 170 ft.
This maneuver was actually designed for the STS-71 shuttle-Mir mission and would have been required if the mission had launched in early June 1995. The launch slipped to late June and this allowed the normal approach to be used.
Thank you, Jorge!
-
#2829
by
Fequalsma
on 07 Feb, 2013 00:20
-
Orbiter airframe design life = 100 flights x 4 for fatigue factor of safety => 400 flights. Discovery flew 39 times, the most of any Orbiter, so thats ~ 40 percent of the design life, and ~ 10 percent of the "total" airframe life. Don't know of any post-retirement inspections, although I'm sure that they were during the OMDPs.
F=ma
Did any of the retired orbiters have any of their frame / structure inspected / tested to see how well their life expectancy measured up to predictions? I assume that each flight put loads on the structure such that it would fatigue- much like how commercial aircraft are limited to a certain amount of "cycles"?
Thank you.
-
#2830
by
penguin44
on 11 Feb, 2013 20:19
-
I have 2 questions.
First, I just saw a documentary on the shuttle and it was talking about the tiles. It stated the shuttle atlantis had the fewest tiles of the fleet. I figured it would have been endeavour as she was the most recent. Why didn't she?
Second relates to launch. I head it is possible for the crew to fly a manual ascent. How is this achieved?
-
#2831
by
Jim
on 11 Feb, 2013 22:18
-
Second relates to launch. I head it is possible for the crew to fly a manual ascent. How is this achieved?
Via the hand controller and throttle, using guidance generated cues on the ADI. Basically, only useful in few instances, since it is not a backup to a guidance or control system failures since those are still required during "manual" control.
-
#2832
by
wolfpack
on 12 Feb, 2013 02:00
-
Via the hand controller and throttle, using guidance generated cues on the ADI. Basically, only useful in few instances, since it is not a backup to a guidance or control system failures since those are still required during "manual" control.
Ken Reightler is of the opinion that this was impossible in first stage ascent. I'm inclined to agree. Trying to manually vector SRB's is going to do nothing but flip the vehicle over.
-
#2833
by
Jim
on 12 Feb, 2013 03:37
-
Via the hand controller and throttle, using guidance generated cues on the ADI. Basically, only useful in few instances, since it is not a backup to a guidance or control system failures since those are still required during "manual" control.
Ken Reightler is of the opinion that this was impossible in first stage ascent. I'm inclined to agree. Trying to manually vector SRB's is going to do nothing but flip the vehicle over.
That was assumed in my answer
-
#2834
by
psloss
on 12 Feb, 2013 13:01
-
-
#2835
by
Malderi
on 12 Feb, 2013 20:08
-
Via the hand controller and throttle, using guidance generated cues on the ADI. Basically, only useful in few instances, since it is not a backup to a guidance or control system failures since those are still required during "manual" control.
Ken Reightler is of the opinion that this was impossible in first stage ascent. I'm inclined to agree. Trying to manually vector SRB's is going to do nothing but flip the vehicle over.
The Flight Rules forbade manual ascent prior to 1:30 anyway.
What were the results if this was ever tried in the SAIL/SMS?
-
#2836
by
alk3997
on 13 Feb, 2013 13:46
-
I flew a few "manual" first stage ascents in the SMS. I was all over the sky. Because of the thrust level in the SRBs any small movement of the stick resulted in a large movement of the vehicle. I'm sure I would have broken off the wings and the attach points without any problem, if the SMS had modeled that.
I suppose we could have changed the gain in the RHC during first stage but why would anyone do that when the time could have been spent making more useful software changes? Basically there was no reason for anyone to be flying first stage manually. GN&C was more than capable of handling open loop control during first stage. At this velocity, go to this attitude isn't that difficult.
Jorge, do you remember the split-s abort mode tests?
-
#2837
by
psloss
on 13 Feb, 2013 15:13
-
Jorge, do you remember the split-s abort mode tests?
Wow, blast from the past...didn't this come up during the first RTF period?
-
#2838
by
alk3997
on 13 Feb, 2013 16:02
-
Jorge, do you remember the split-s abort mode tests?
Wow, blast from the past...didn't this come up during the first RTF period?
Good memory - yes it did. I believe only one crew member was able to successfully fly the split-s (and leave the wings on in post abort analysis). Kind of part abort and part air show.
For those curious it was a proposed contingency abort mode in first stage with three engines out. I believe with the vehicle flying an inverted loop in pitch. That was a long time ago.
-
#2839
by
psloss
on 13 Feb, 2013 16:33
-
Jorge, do you remember the split-s abort mode tests?
Wow, blast from the past...didn't this come up during the first RTF period?
Good memory - yes it did. I believe only one crew member was able to successfully fly the split-s (and leave the wings on in post abort analysis). Kind of part abort and part air show.
For those curious it was a proposed contingency abort mode in first stage with three engines out. I believe with the vehicle flying an inverted loop in pitch. That was a long time ago.
Still sounds interesting, thanks.
There was a paragraph on it in AvWeek back then and never saw another word on it. If I recall correctly, another one of those from that era was doing the post-liftoff roll to heads up instead of heads down.