-
#3040
by
Jim
on 03 Jan, 2014 17:16
-
Is there a list or if I subscribe to L2 can I get that information?
no, the drawings are not available at that level on the web.
-
#3041
by
Sesquipedalian
on 03 Jan, 2014 18:11
-
According to
this post, the Shuttle was not supposed to launch with an empty payload bay. However, the STS-400 Hubble rescue flight was designed to launch with an empty payload bay (and indeed, the 39B modifications wouldn't have allowed a payload anyway).
Can someone explain the discrepancy? Was the trajectory modified as the linked post speculates?
-
#3042
by
Jim
on 03 Jan, 2014 18:28
-
According to this post, the Shuttle was not supposed to launch with an empty payload bay. However, the STS-400 Hubble rescue flight was designed to launch with an empty payload bay (and indeed, the 39B modifications wouldn't have allowed a payload anyway).
Can someone explain the discrepancy? Was the trajectory modified as the linked post speculates?
They would add ballast.
-
#3043
by
Sesquipedalian
on 03 Jan, 2014 19:17
-
How much ballast? And where would they put it? They can't put it in the payload bay, since 39B was no-go for payload operations during the STS-125 launch campaign. (Or am I wrong about that last bit?)
-
#3044
by
psloss
on 03 Jan, 2014 19:56
-
How much ballast? And where would they put it? They can't put it in the payload bay, since 39B was no-go for payload operations during the STS-125 launch campaign. (Or am I wrong about that last bit?)
Among other things there are ballast boxes in the aft compartment. There's a good amount of STS-400 documentation on L2...did you look at that? (At least one of the versions there notes that the flight design allowed for those to be empty.)
-
#3045
by
Jim
on 03 Jan, 2014 19:59
-
How much ballast? And where would they put it? They can't put it in the payload bay, since 39B was no-go for payload operations during the STS-125 launch campaign. (Or am I wrong about that last bit?)
They can put it in while the vehicle was in the OPF.
-
#3046
by
Sesquipedalian
on 03 Jan, 2014 21:04
-
Among other things there are ballast boxes in the aft compartment. There's a good amount of STS-400 documentation on L2...did you look at that? (At least one of the versions there notes that the flight design allowed for those to be empty.)
The problem is that there is
so much documentation that I wouldn't know where to look.
You can't search attachments like you can search the forum.
EDIT: The Mission Overview presentation doesn't mention ballast, but it does show the docking system in the PLB. I wonder if that would be enough.
EDIT2: Well, the FOIO presentation
here says that no ballast was carried.
They can put it in while the vehicle was in the OPF.
Except when STS-400 stood down, Endeavour went straight to 39A, it didn't go back to the OPF.
Although with one more intuitive jump, this might work. Could they have put the ballast in the PLB in the OPF, then gone to 39B for STS-400, then gone to 39A and unloaded the ballast using 39A's payload facility?
-
#3047
by
Hog
on 13 Jan, 2014 15:03
-
When the US Air Force entered its requirement for a certain cross range capability, apparently they did so in order to be able to snatch and run with Soviet satellites. then land in the USA all in one single orbit. In reality was this even possible.
I have "heard" that the Russians feared the STS's capabilities, specifically the fact that STS could overfly Soviet territory, take pictures and more importantly release high yield thermonuclear devices. Are these statement true and is this why the Soviets developed Buran, to also have this nuclear delivery capability? The public cover could be "Oh we are just launching to release a weather satellite, Psych we are dropping Tsar Bomba from orbit" sort of scenario.
I would think that the early Shuttle launches were followed very closely by the Soviets. Any evidence to support that the Soviet military raised their defense conditions when STS would be overflying Soviet territory.
Thankyou in advance.
-
#3048
by
Jim
on 13 Jan, 2014 15:11
-
When the US Air Force entered its requirement for a certain cross range capability, apparently they did so in order to be able to snatch and run with Soviet satellites. then land in the USA all in one single orbit. In reality was this even possible.
No, and it is covered earlier in these threads.
-
#3049
by
Jim
on 13 Jan, 2014 15:12
-
I would think that the early Shuttle launches were followed very closely by the Soviets. Any evidence to support that the Soviet military raised their defense conditions when STS would be overflying Soviet territory.
No, but all launches were watched by the USSR.
-
#3050
by
shuttlemodeler
on 16 Jan, 2014 18:46
-
Does anyone know when the OWP doors went up on the FSS?
-
#3051
by
DaveS
on 16 Jan, 2014 19:13
-
Does anyone know when the OWP doors went up on the FSS?
Pad B had the +Y OWP Curtain Wall from the onset it went into service for the shuttle program in 1985 for the STS-51L flow. It was however missing the -Y OWP Curtain Wall on the RSS. This was added later in 1986 in time for the practice sessions with Atlantis in October 1986.
Pad A had the entire OWP system in place when it went back into service for the STS-32 flow in 1989.
-
#3052
by
spacecane
on 20 Jan, 2014 13:29
-
How were the strongbacks attached to/detached from the payload bay doors? My question is two-fold. First, I'd like to know what they attached to and how those attach points were uncovered/covered.
The second part is on the pad, what was used to handle them in the RSS?
Finally, why doesn't Atlantis need the strongbacks in the exhibit?
-
#3053
by
Ronpur50
on 20 Jan, 2014 13:42
-
At the exhibit, the doors are held by several cables. I think at least 6 or 7 per door.
-
#3054
by
Jim
on 20 Jan, 2014 14:20
-
How were the strongbacks attached to/detached from the payload bay doors? My question is two-fold. First, I'd like to know what they attached to and how those attach points were uncovered/covered.
The second part is on the pad, what was used to handle them in the RSS?
They were bolted and some TPS was just removed to exposed the attach points. The TPS would be replaced after the strongbacks were removed. The strongbacks were used at the pad.
-
#3055
by
Lee Jay
on 20 Jan, 2014 18:19
-
-
#3056
by
spacecane
on 20 Jan, 2014 18:55
-
A few TPS related questions:
In an article I was reading about the TPS and the issues they had early on, it mentioned that there was some ablative TPS installed between elevons. Why was this needed and can it be seen in any pictures?
How was the surface kept "flat" when they changed some of the tiles to the blankets? Did they make the blankets the exact same thickness that the tiles were or did they add spacers?
What were the enterprise tiles made out of and why didn't they have the same issues getting them to stick as the Columbia tiles?
-
#3057
by
psloss
on 20 Jan, 2014 19:02
-
-
#3058
by
wolfpack
on 20 Jan, 2014 19:18
-
What were the enterprise tiles made out of and why didn't they have the same issues getting them to stick as the Columbia tiles?
OV-101 is covered in fiberglass (nose, wing leading edge) and foam rubber. It's just painted black in some spots.
-
#3059
by
Jim
on 20 Jan, 2014 20:26
-
1. In an article I was reading about the TPS and the issues they had early on, it mentioned that there was some ablative TPS installed between elevons. Why was this needed and can it be seen in any pictures?
2. How was the surface kept "flat" when they changed some of the tiles to the blankets? Did they make the blankets the exact same thickness that the tiles were or did they add spacers?
3. What were the enterprise tiles made out of and why didn't they have the same issues getting them to stick as the Columbia tiles?
1. It's there and it is needed because of localized heating. It is a small area
2. Same thickness
3. Not real tiles.
You can't search attachments like you can search the forum.