-
#3140
by
GLS
on 02 Jun, 2014 15:45
-
"2EO Blue" is a contingency abort mode. The procedure, and the other 4 or 5, are explained in the ascent checklist (or similar), all available somewhere in the NASA/JSC website.
The push button reference is so the crew push the main engine shutdown push button, on the engine that just died, so the GPCs can close the prevalves and guidance knows that then engine is dead. This is only needed when there's a data path failure, and the GPCs don't have any info about the engine, but the crew and MCC "can tell" if the engine is on or off.
The nose down reference is for the CDR, to decrease the angle of attack (alpha) down to about 40º ou 50º (it was at 70º), so that control is not lost during the pullout.
BTW: judging by the audio the crew still hadn't done the PPA, so the video is wrong in that aspect, and the vehicle was pointing away from KSC the whole time.
-
#3141
by
Specifically-Impulsive
on 02 Jun, 2014 16:48
-
Is the audio on this a real RTLS / ditching sim? If so, does anyone know when this sim was conducted?
The video is not from the Shuttle Mission Simulator. Although the audio sounds authentic to me, I can't say that I recognize any of the crew or flight controller voices.
-
#3142
by
psloss
on 02 Jun, 2014 17:13
-
Is the audio on this a real RTLS / ditching sim? If so, does anyone know when this sim was conducted?
The audio has been re-encoded / re-uploaded to YT multiple times; another thread with some help identifying voices from Wayne Hale:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23001.msg648174#msg648174Given the audio is less than eight minutes long, it is heavily edited and thus we're losing important events and context to the sim run -- and I guess we can't necessarily say for sure if this audio is from a single run or multiple runs. It would have been fascinating to hear the raw, unedited audio.
-
#3143
by
mkirk
on 02 Jun, 2014 17:39
-
What does the following call from FDO to FD mean?
"we took a thrust update of plus 6"
Thank you.
The Flight Dynamics group had a tool in the Mission Control Center called the ARD (abort region determinator) which was used to calculate the shuttle's abort mode boundaries in real time. Actual ascent performance in this particular case was different than the predicted/modeled performance because of a small hydrogen leak in the #3 (right) shuttle main engine nozzle. FDO was advising Flight that the ARD model was given a real time update of 6 feet per second to its thrust value.
Mark Kirkman
-
#3144
by
Specifically-Impulsive
on 02 Jun, 2014 18:02
-
-
#3145
by
iskyfly
on 04 Jun, 2014 15:24
-
Thank you DaveS, GLS, S-I, Phillip and Mark.
I sure do miss the program.
-
#3146
by
iskyfly
on 05 Jun, 2014 19:29
-
I'm not sure why this was published on June 2nd but it is an interesting look back at STS-51L and 107. Some relatively "new" launch footage from the public.
http://retroreport.org/major-malfunction-lessons-from-challenger/Looks like recent interviews with;
Allan J. McDonald - director of Morton-Thiokol at the time. "I did the smartest thing I ever did in my lifetime, I refused to sign (the launch rationale)."
Larry Mulloy - NASA project manager for the SRB's at the time. He was told, "I wouldn't want to be the guy that had to appear at a board of inquiry if this things blows." Mulloy replied, "I understand that Al, and you won't have to. That will be me."
Then it goes on to STS 107;
Rodney Rocha - STS 107 "The decision to ask for more data was unanimous. The next day, I get an email saying the answer is no. I called up the chief engineer, why don't you back this up? The chief engineer replied, "I don't want to be a chicken little about this."
During a teleconference before entry an engineer said;
"We could lose an entire tile. It could be a significant area of tile damage."
Linda Ham said, "he was just reiterating that he doesn't believe that there isn't any burn through so no safety of flight issue.... alright any questions on that?"
Three requests were made of Ham for imaging. All were denied.
NASA's only communication to the crew about this, "there is absolutely no concern for entry."
-
#3147
by
rayleighscatter
on 05 Jun, 2014 19:59
-
The above abort training scenario brought a question to mind. In the event that crew would have to bail out was there any sort of "autopilot" (for lack of a better term) that could keep the craft steady so that the person at the stick actually had time to get from the flight deck to the mid deck and out the hatch without the shuttle starting to tumble from aerodynamic forces and lack of positive input.
-
#3148
by
mkirk
on 05 Jun, 2014 20:22
-
The above abort training scenario brought a question to mind. In the event that crew would have to bail out was there any sort of "autopilot" (for lack of a better term) that could keep the craft steady so that the person at the stick actually had time to get from the flight deck to the mid deck and out the hatch without the shuttle starting to tumble from aerodynamic forces and lack of positive input.
Basically there was an "attitude hold" function that could be armed only when the orbiter was subsonic and it's software was operating in either MM 305 (major mode software for approach and land) or MM 603 (RTLS/Contingency Abort glided flight software). Ideally the crew would stabilize the orbiter in a wings level - stable glide with an airspeed of around 185 to 195 KEAS. Then they would arm the so called bailout function of the DAP (digital auto pilot) by rotating the abort knob to ATO (Abort to Orbit) and pressing the abort push button. The word "BAILOUT" would appear and start flashing on the Vertical Situation Display indicating the mode had been armed. The crew would then ensure the control stick steering (CSS) functions were in AUTO for roll/yaw and pitch. "BAILOUT" would remain on steady (and overbright) when the mode was engaged. The commander and pilot would then depower the flight controller switches (i.e. power for the control sticks) to make sure the bailout auto pilot wouldn't accidentally become disengaged by an inadvertent bump of the stick(s) as they climbed out of their seats.
Mark Kirkman
-
#3149
by
TJL
on 06 Jun, 2014 01:22
-
I saw a preflight photo of the STS-4 crew (Mattingly and Hartsfield) standing in front of Columbia at LC-39A. There are several other astronauts in the photo including James van Hoften, Steve Hawley, Dick Richards, Mike Smith, Kathy Sullivan and Don Williams.
Were the additional astronauts considered "support personnel" for STS-4?
Thank you.
-
#3150
by
iskyfly
on 06 Jun, 2014 02:30
-
I don't have direct knowledge to answer your question, but if you wiki their names you will see what their roles were.
-
#3151
by
Specifically-Impulsive
on 06 Jun, 2014 17:16
-
... The word "BAILOUT" would appear and start flashing on the Vertical Situation Display indicating the mode had been armed...
Example attached.
-
#3152
by
iskyfly
on 09 Jun, 2014 17:02
-
Were there any anomalies with the MEDS upgrades during a mission?
-
#3153
by
alk3997
on 11 Jun, 2014 02:58
-
Were there any anomalies with the MEDS upgrades during a mission?
The quality was comparable to that of PASS and BFS. So about one in-flight error every 5 years at the end of the program. None of the errors ever threatened the mission objectives. There was one that was noticeable on-orbit, if I remember correctly. It was towards the beginning of the MEDS flights.
The quality was maintained even though we were adding new capabilities. The new capabilities were being added even at the end of the program. We had started moving more and more display generation capability from the GPCs to the MEDS processors to free up more GPC memory. We were also starting to use the MEDS system capabilities rather than being limited to drawing pictures of the original electromechanical displays.
You can find more PASS information at:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20110014946. There is some information about MEDS in the paper but I don't remember any MEDS quality numbers being published.
Andy
-
#3154
by
iskyfly
on 13 Jun, 2014 17:25
-
Thank you Andy.
-
#3155
by
DaveS
on 14 Jun, 2014 00:08
-
Does anyone know the width of the aft SRB IEA box and the thickness of the holddown post shoes?
-
#3156
by
Hog
on 16 Jun, 2014 17:18
-
We all know about the SSME's #2#3 have a "Start" position, then once up and burning before liftoff, and then move into their "Launch" configuration.
1)I was wondering if the SSME's have a certain position for MECO(Main Engine Cut Off)?
2) If there is a certain MECO gimbal position, is it similar/same to the "Start" position?
TIA
-
#3157
by
alk3997
on 17 Jun, 2014 13:05
-
We all know about the SSME's #2#3 have a "Start" position, then once up and burning before liftoff, and then move into their "Launch" configuration.
1)I was wondering if the SSME's have a certain position for MECO(Main Engine Cut Off)?
2) If there is a certain MECO gimbal position, is it similar/same to the "Start" position?
TIA
At fine countdown (just before MECO), the engines would have likely been in a position where the thrust would go through the center of gravity/mass. After MECO, the APUs would be shutdown so that the engines could not be moved. The positions tended to drift slighty during the on-orbit phase. Then, many days (or weeks) later, when OPS 8 checkout was done, a single APU would be powered on which would allow the engines to be moved.
Just before entry when the APUs were powered-up again, the engines could be moved again. This was done to put them into a position where they received protection from entry heating. Once the drag chute was installed (STS-49 first flight), then after entry heating they would be moved again for drag chute clearance. Then following landing they could be put in "rain drain" or other positions depending upon weather and whether a ferry flight was necessary.
Remember the engines could only be moved when the APUs were on (or at KSC). So, the answers to your questions were really no and no, although as you can imagine at nominal MECO, the positions they ended up in flight-after-flight were very similar.
-
#3158
by
Hog
on 17 Jun, 2014 15:25
-
The APU's would be running at MECO. The SSME's have a start up position so teh engine bells dont hit each other during startup, just before liftoff they are moved into "flight" position, where engines 2 and 3 come very close to each other.
I was wondering that during the MECO process as the engines are being shutdown, if the SSME's were moved into a specific position to avoid damage? or do the engine bells not oscillate during shutdown as they do during startup?
SSME bells bending as they are started and throttled up. Engine#1 really starts bending as the blueish flame and mach cones emerge at 0:17 seconds. At the very end of that video you can see engines 2 and 3 approach one another though it is cut off.
Shown better here, but is so slow its hard to notice, if you toggle between the 2 times its quite apparent. You are looking for engine 2 and 3 to approach each other while moving from their "start" to "flight" positions.
From 4:38-4:53
On this older video from STS-1 FRR from 1:07-1:20, then just before MECO of the FRR at 2:36 just before Engine#1 begins its shutdown, Engines 2 and 3 begin to gimbal apart from each other.
Looks like MECO is just as "eventful" for the bells as startup is.
From these observations, I'm going to assume that there is a shutdown position for SSME #2 and #3 when in space, just as there is a startup position for those engines on the pad.
I did see a video that showed a very strange position after the orbiter had landed but before APU shutdown, I didnt realzie that the SSME's could gimble so much. It looked like the bell was loose and flopping over.
-
#3159
by
iskyfly
on 17 Jun, 2014 18:38
-
In the STS-93 mission control video where the booster and its backroom loop can be heard, what are the controllers looking for on their data screens for them to make the call "ignition" ?
Thanks