-
#3220
by
Jim
on 06 Jul, 2014 03:07
-
Watching video of some pre-Challenger launches I noticed the test director using the callsign "LTD" instead of "NTD". Was this designation used for all pre-Challenger launches? Or was it changed away from NTD in anticipation of SLC-6 launches where the test director wouldn't actually be a "NASA Test Director" and instead be an Air Force officer?
They got rid of the position in a few years. There was no reason to have an integration position that took status from OTC, TBC, STM, SRO, PTC, Safety, etc and then report to the NTD.
The USAF position was AFTD. Which also existed on the east coast for shuttle payloads and USAF ELV launches.
-
#3221
by
thomasafb
on 08 Jul, 2014 20:21
-
At some point during the post Columbia stand-down, there was a news item regarding an upside-down installed actuator in the rudder/speed brake of Discovery. Is there any documentation about this and/or the work to replace it available?
-
#3222
by
Specifically-Impulsive
on 08 Jul, 2014 21:13
-
At some point during the post Columbia stand-down, there was a news item regarding an upside-down installed actuator in the rudder/speed brake of Discovery. Is there any documentation about this and/or the work to replace it available?
It's discussed in "Space Shuttle Program Action 11" in the Implementation Plan, which can be found at this link:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/58541main_RTF_rev2.pdf
-
#3223
by
thomasafb
on 09 Jul, 2014 18:23
-
-
#3224
by
sivodave
on 10 Jul, 2014 10:10
-
Hello all.
Question about the Malarkey Milkshake performed during STS-39. I'm reading from the mission press information that the OMS firings for plum observations by the SPAS/IBSS were done with only one engine and that this was the first time that a single OMS engine firing was performed.
I'd like to know why they decided to do the firing with only one engine? Was only for fuel savings or for what else?
Thanks very much
Davide
-
#3225
by
Jim
on 10 Jul, 2014 13:46
-
Hello all.
Question about the Malarkey Milkshake performed during STS-39. I'm reading from the mission press information that the OMS firings for plum observations by the SPAS/IBSS were done with only one engine and that this was the first time that a single OMS engine firing was performed.
I'd like to know why they decided to do the firing with only one engine? Was only for fuel savings or for what else?
Thanks very much
Davide
Only a plume was needed and not thrust.
-
#3226
by
spacecane
on 18 Jul, 2014 18:05
-
When I was at the Atlantis exhibit a few months ago I noticed the "No Step" markings on the elevons. This would imply that, like an airliner, walking on the other parts of the wing was OK. Was it normal for technicians to walk on the orbiter wings for normal repairs and maintenance?
Also, if I recall, Columbia and Challenger had tiles on part of the wing surface. Were technicians allowed to walk on these?
-
#3227
by
Jim
on 18 Jul, 2014 18:53
-
When I was at the Atlantis exhibit a few months ago I noticed the "No Step" markings on the elevons. This would imply that, like an airliner, walking on the other parts of the wing was OK. Was it normal for technicians to walk on the orbiter wings for normal repairs and maintenance?
Also, if I recall, Columbia and Challenger had tiles on part of the wing surface. Were technicians allowed to walk on these?
Yes and no tiles on top of wing.
-
#3228
by
OV135
on 20 Jul, 2014 21:19
-
The elevon flipper doors have the No Step markings.
-
#3229
by
sivodave
on 23 Jul, 2014 10:18
-
When the USAF was developing SLC-6 for Space Shuttle launches there were concerns that gaseous hydrogen could fill up the main engine ducts provoking a detonation during lift off, possibly damaging the shuttle.
I don't understand this issue. Why a shuttle on SLC-6 would have this problem? Couldn't they use burnoff preigniters as on the launch pad at the KSC?
Thanks
Davide
-
#3230
by
DaveS
on 23 Jul, 2014 10:28
-
When the USAF was developing SLC-6 for Space Shuttle launches there were concerns that gaseous hydrogen could fill up the main engine ducts provoking a detonation during lift off, possibly damaging the shuttle.
I don't understand this issue. Why a shuttle on SLC-6 would have this problem? Couldn't they use burnoff preigniters as on the launch pad at the KSC?
Thanks
Davide
They did. The H2 burn-off ignitors only combust GH2 that is expelled at engine ignition. However there is GH2 that is expelled during the countdown which at SLC-6 would have accumulated in the closed exhaust duct. KSC's LC-39 pads have an open flame trench which blows the GH2 away preventing dangerous build ups.
-
#3231
by
rayleighscatter
on 28 Jul, 2014 21:10
-
Where are the SRB casings now?
-
#3232
by
Jim
on 28 Jul, 2014 22:04
-
Where are the SRB casings now?
Utah, at the ATK plant
-
#3233
by
OV135
on 29 Jul, 2014 14:04
-
-
#3234
by
Jim
on 29 Jul, 2014 14:11
-
-
#3235
by
roma847
on 29 Jul, 2014 15:54
-
-
#3236
by
OV135
on 29 Jul, 2014 17:44
-
I see. Is there a diagram of it to show how far down the tank it went and if it connected to the orbiter? I'm building STS-1 in 1/72 scale.
-
#3237
by
roma847
on 29 Jul, 2014 19:42
-
Maybe this will help you further here.
This is the thread of
Mike (egt95) in
ARC Forums, who has built an impressive stack of
Columbia STS-1, however 1:144, but he did a really fantastic job.
-
#3238
by
OV135
on 30 Jul, 2014 22:21
-
I've seen that thread.
Though in the photos I linked, it looks like the anti-geyser line is thicker than the two pressurization lines are.
I wish there was a diagram of this line and how it fit with the first 3 ETs.
-
#3239
by
TJL
on 31 Jul, 2014 22:58
-
I could use similar shots of Challenger's STS-6. 
Though in the photos I linked, it looks like the anti-geyser line is thicker than the two pressurization lines are.