Shuttle Q&A Part 5

• #3020 by Jim on 12 Dec, 2013 10:39
• Quote from: Hoonte on 12 Dec, 2013 07:00

  What was the reason for the first 3 ALT flights to have the tail cone in place?
  

  
  To come off the SCA and land with a better L/D (reduce risk)
• #3021 by Darren_Hensley on 12 Dec, 2013 16:50
• Quote from: manboy on 20 Nov, 2013 22:39

  Has anyone here seen this image before?
  

  
  I saw this and many others like it in a document that described "the history of the Docking System". This one is a prototype for the CBM, about the time that VonBraun was working on the design for SS freedom. I belive it's a Boeing design that was eventually replaced by the current CBM. This design was androgenous, the current CBM is not.
• #3022 by Jim on 12 Dec, 2013 17:46
• Quote from: Darren_Hensley on 12 Dec, 2013 16:50

  This one is a prototype for the CBM, about the time that VonBraun was working on the design for SS freedom.
  

  
  He died long before there was an SSF and he was booted upstairs to NASA HQ in DC way before then.
• #3023 by wolfpack on 12 Dec, 2013 18:50
• Quote from: Hoonte on 12 Dec, 2013 07:00

  What was the reason for the first 3 ALT flights to have the tail cone in place?
  

  
  IIRC, cone off vs cone on roughly halved the gliding distance. Big difference!
• #3024 by Hoonte on 12 Dec, 2013 20:09
• But why the 3 test with cone while the real orbiter obviously never lands with it
• #3025 by Jim on 12 Dec, 2013 22:09
• Quote from: Hoonte on 12 Dec, 2013 20:09

  But why the 3 test with cone while the real orbiter obviously never lands with it
  

  
  Incremental testing.  It was deemed too risky to start the testing off the SCA without the tailcone.   
  
  
• #3026 by Hoonte on 13 Dec, 2013 06:56
• Quote from: Jim on 12 Dec, 2013 22:09

  Quote from: Hoonte on 12 Dec, 2013 20:09

  But why the 3 test with cone while the real orbiter obviously never lands with it
  

  
  Incremental testing.  It was deemed too risky to start the testing off the SCA without the tailcone.   
  
  
  

  
  Got it..
  Final question. What does SCA stand for?
• #3027 by brahmanknight on 13 Dec, 2013 07:15
• Shuttle Carrier Aircraft.
  
  That's the official name of the two modified 747s that ferried the orbiters around.
• #3028 by roma847 on 13 Dec, 2013 07:18
• There were really only two SCAs?
  
  
• #3029 by psloss on 13 Dec, 2013 11:35
• Quote from: roma847 on 13 Dec, 2013 07:18

  There were really only two SCAs?
  

  Yes, and the second purchase only came out of recovery from the 51-L accident.
  
• #3030 by wolfpack on 13 Dec, 2013 18:36
• Quote from: Hoonte on 12 Dec, 2013 20:09

  But why the 3 test with cone while the real orbiter obviously never lands with it
  

  
  Risk to both OV-101 and SCA (905).
  
  905 also needed a crew escape system during ALT. Remnants remain to this day, I believe. Basically it was a way to blow out some (former) first-class cabin windows and bail out far enough in front of the wings and engines to survive.
• #3031 by iskyfly on 18 Dec, 2013 00:48
• During the first ALT test "sideway lurch" was mentioned by one of the crew. It was stated in a way that the "sideway lurch" was to be expected.
  
  What where they referring to?
  
  
  Oh, and was ALT ever considered as a method / means to train the crew for the landing phase?
  
  Thanks
  
• #3032 by iskyfly on 18 Dec, 2013 00:50
• What is omicron?
  
  I think I have heard it being read up to the crew from MCC possibly as part of the numbers called up for a burn.
  
  
  Thanks
  
  
• #3033 by mkirk on 18 Dec, 2013 00:56
• Quote from: iskyfly on 18 Dec, 2013 00:50

  What is omicron?
  
  I think I have heard it being read up to the crew from MCC possibly as part of the numbers called up for a burn.
  
  
  Thanks
  
  
  

  
  Omicron is the angle of rotation about the orbiter body vector
  
  Mark
• #3034 by Jim on 18 Dec, 2013 00:58
• Quote from: iskyfly on 18 Dec, 2013 00:50

  What is omicron?
  
  I think I have heard it being read up to the crew from MCC possibly as part of the numbers called up for a burn.
  
  
  Thanks
  
  
  

  
  An angle
• #3035 by Shuttle Endeavour on 03 Jan, 2014 03:29
• Hello
  I have seen the Space Shuttle Tile key created by NASA and I was wondering if there was another similar key or information about the whereabouts of various components in the fuselage and payload bay. If anybody has one, it would be greatly appreciated if you could post it.

  ---

  tile_placement_chart.pdf
• #3036 by AnalogMan on 03 Jan, 2014 11:54
• Quote from: Shuttle Endeavour on 03 Jan, 2014 03:29

  Hello
  I have seen the Space Shuttle Tile key created by NASA and I was wondering if there was another similar key or information about the whereabouts of various components in the fuselage and payload bay. If anybody has one, it would be greatly appreciated if you could post it.
  

  
  NASA used to have a collection of drawings showing locations of various systems/components on their website at www.spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/sodb/  Sadly this seems to have disappeared quite some time ago.  The good news is that an archived version of the page and all the pdf files still exists on the "Wayback Machine" (web.archive.org).
  
  NASA page can be found here:
  http://web.archive.org/web/20041030190632/www.spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/sodb/
  
  There's more than fifty drawings - should keep you busy for a while!
• #3037 by Shuttle Endeavour on 03 Jan, 2014 14:32
• Thanks! Those are some pretty cool diagrams. But are there any where it is labeled with V070 numbers for part reference?
• #3038 by Jim on 03 Jan, 2014 14:36
• no, those drawings are not available
  
• #3039 by Shuttle Endeavour on 03 Jan, 2014 14:37
• Is there a list or if I subscribe to L2 can I get that information?