-
#2860
by
ZachS09
on 04 Mar, 2013 19:24
-
I just thought of something: how come certain space-dedicated websites or space historians misinterpret the STS-1 FRF on February 20, 1981 with the actual liftoff on April 12, 1981? I can tell that some of the photos belong to the FRF because of two reasons:
1: No clouds during the FRF, but clouds during the launch.
2: The smoke from the heated Sound Suppression System stands higher than Columbia in the FRF photos because the shuttle just stays on the pad and the engines fire for 20-22 seconds.
Do you think that is a reasonable stating?
-
#2861
by
ZachS09
on 04 Mar, 2013 19:29
-
Another thing, go to this website link that is posted below and look for the pictures that have the caption, "STS-1 Columbia's Ignition", or another caption that has a similar title, and study them. Next, compare the photos with the FRF video footage.
-
#2862
by
Jim
on 04 Mar, 2013 19:46
-
I just thought of something: how come certain space-dedicated websites or space historians misinterpret the STS-1 FRF on February 20, 1981 with the actual liftoff on April 12, 1981? I can tell that some of the photos belong to the FRF because of two reasons:
1: No clouds during the FRF, but clouds during the launch.
2: The smoke from the heated Sound Suppression System stands higher than Columbia in the FRF photos because the shuttle just stays on the pad and the engines fire for 20-22 seconds.
Do you think that is a reasonable stating?
No, the greatest distinguisher is the cargo net on the intertank.
-
#2863
by
ZachS09
on 04 Mar, 2013 19:50
-
That's a good difference, but also, the weather and the exhaust smoke are two other differences. Another difference is the brightness in the FRF pictures. The FRF took place at 8:46 AM EST while the launch took place at 7:00 AM EST. Now, I know you guys are already aware of the times, but I'm just making notices on the pictures.
-
#2864
by
Jim
on 04 Mar, 2013 19:53
-
Another difference is the brightness in the FRF pictures.
Can't depend on that due to photo processing and archiving issues.
-
#2865
by
Jim
on 04 Mar, 2013 19:54
-
That's a good difference, but also, the weather and the exhaust smoke are two other differences.
Not for non experts and people without an eye for detail. the smoke and weather can be overlooked, the cargo net wasn't going to fly.
This is really a non issue.
-
#2866
by
psloss
on 04 Mar, 2013 20:18
-
I just thought of something: how come certain space-dedicated websites or space historians misinterpret the STS-1 FRF on February 20, 1981 with the actual liftoff on April 12, 1981?
Because it doesn't mean as much to them as it does to us? There's a good deal of casually published information online across lots of subjects and this is one of them.
Another difference is the brightness in the FRF pictures.
Can't depend on that due to photo processing and archiving issues.
Right, better to look for differences in the test configuration from a launch configuration -- couple others besides the cargo net are the heat shield on the MLP and the OMS engine nozzle bags. Both being details that would probably go unnoticed by a general audience.
-
#2867
by
SamfordOfSpace
on 11 Mar, 2013 16:42
-
Regarding the shuttle hull material.
Is the green hull material painted aluminum or something else? Are the struts titanium or aluminum?
-
#2868
by
Jim
on 11 Mar, 2013 17:56
-
Regarding the shuttle hull material.
Is the green hull material painted aluminum or something else? Are the struts titanium or aluminum?
Green is aluminum.
-
#2869
by
Lurker Steve
on 12 Mar, 2013 20:08
-
-
#2870
by
Jim
on 12 Mar, 2013 20:18
-
This description of the "original" Shuttle design with the flyback booster was posted on the SpaceX board.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/02/where-to-launch-and-land-the-space-shuttle-1972/
How far did they get with the "original" design, before switching to the SRBs and external fuel tank ? I assume they switched due to schedule/funding, or was their some technical reason ?
It never got into design. It was only concepts before settling on the final configuration. And it was money that dictated the end result.
-
#2871
by
Fequalsma
on 12 Mar, 2013 21:50
-
The green coating is the Super Koropon primer (2-part epoxy) over the (mostly) aluminium primary structures. The struts in the mid-fuselage (under the payload bay) were originally all boron/aluminium composites. Many were replaced with aluminium as they were damaged in service. The struts in the wing ribs and spars are also aluminum.
F=ma
Regarding the shuttle hull material.
Is the green hull material painted aluminum or something else? Are the struts titanium or aluminum?
-
#2872
by
DaveS
on 15 Mar, 2013 14:06
-
Does anyone know the throat and base diameter as well as the length of the OME nozzles?
-
#2873
by
Fequalsma
on 16 Mar, 2013 14:29
-
Found a conference paper on NTRS on "Space Shuttle Orbit Maneuvering Engine" by Robert Polifka from NASA MSC. It's NASA TM-X-70221 from the 1972 JANNAF Propulsion Meeting. It reports a 50" x 75" envelope for the OME, and an expansion ratio of 72.
F=ma
Does anyone know the throat and base diameter as well as the length of the OME nozzles?
-
#2874
by
jeff122670
on 18 Mar, 2013 15:56
-
Why does the Shuttle have wings?
This question was raised at the Columbia + 10 conference last week at GWU. The response was graded as "incomplete"......so I thought this might be a good thread to have the COMPLETE discussion.....
ready....GO!
-
#2875
by
Danny Dot
on 18 Mar, 2013 16:50
-
Why does the Shuttle have wings?
This question was raised at the Columbia + 10 conference last week at GWU. The response was graded as "incomplete"......so I thought this might be a good thread to have the COMPLETE discussion.....
ready....GO!
Better lift over drag equals bigger cross range.
Danny Deger
-
#2876
by
Jim
on 18 Mar, 2013 17:53
-
Why does the Shuttle have wings?
This question was raised at the Columbia + 10 conference last week at GWU. The response was graded as "incomplete"......so I thought this might be a good thread to have the COMPLETE discussion.....
ready....GO!
Better lift over drag equals bigger cross range.
Danny Deger
QED
-
#2877
by
rayleighscatter
on 18 Mar, 2013 19:31
-
Was failure and breakup of the ET after discarding induced in some way? Wether through some destructive mechanism, or some sort of intergrated failure points? Or was it purely aerodynamic forces on falling that broke it apart?
Another question along the same lines, is it known how large the fragments that reached the ocean were?
-
#2878
by
wolfpack
on 19 Mar, 2013 15:15
-
Was failure and breakup of the ET after discarding induced in some way? Wether through some destructive mechanism, or some sort of intergrated failure points? Or was it purely aerodynamic forces on falling that broke it apart?
Another question along the same lines, is it known how large the fragments that reached the ocean were?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nasamarshall/3953790458/You can see there is quite a bit of tumbling (brighter glow when the ET turns broadside to the wind). Wasn't the GOX vent valve left open after sep to promote tumbling?
-
#2879
by
john7p
on 25 Mar, 2013 09:18
-
Hello,
I got a question.
When on launch day the crew exited the elevator at the launch pad, one of them, often the CDR, got to a phone. This phone was next to the catwalk to the whiteroom. Who got called and why?
Greetz John