-
#3260 by psloss on 08 Aug, 2014 15:29
-
No problem. If you're interested, we have a few videos shot just prior to the end of the program out at Dryden (now Armstrong) on L2 (and also some footage courtesy of NASA).
I cropped it from a Wikipedia picture (I think) found via a Google image search. Sorry for not paying attention to its full context.But how come there isn't an indent at the bottom of the tail cone in the image I posted?
There is, but the way the image is framed or zoomed makes it more difficult to see it or gain much perspective. Is that the whole image (sure looks like it's from the MDD at Dryden)?
Link to a shot of buildup at KSC that shows it better (small thumbnail attached):
http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/detail.cfm?mediaid=59472
-
#3261 by Ronpur50 on 13 Aug, 2014 03:02
-
If Challenger had not been lost, would it have been able to participate in ISS assembly and resupply? Or would it's weight have prevented it from most ISS flights like Columbia? I have read that Challenger could carry 2500 lbs more that Columbia, but still far less than the rest of the fleet.
And why was Columbia originally planned to fly STS-118 to ISS? A lighter payload? -
#3262 by wolfpack on 14 Aug, 2014 20:27
-
If Challenger had not been lost, would it have been able to participate in ISS assembly and resupply? Or would it's weight have prevented it from most ISS flights like Columbia? I have read that Challenger could carry 2500 lbs more that Columbia, but still far less than the rest of the fleet.
Would certainly have been used to build/service a Space Station Freedom @ 28.5 deg inclination.
I think the events of 51-L and the decision to build ISS are too far removed from one another in time to answer without a LOT of speculation. -
#3263 by Ronpur50 on 14 Aug, 2014 20:38
-
If Challenger had not been lost, would it have been able to participate in ISS assembly and resupply? Or would it's weight have prevented it from most ISS flights like Columbia? I have read that Challenger could carry 2500 lbs more that Columbia, but still far less than the rest of the fleet.
Would certainly have been used to build/service a Space Station Freedom @ 28.5 deg inclination.
I think the events of 51-L and the decision to build ISS are too far removed from one another in time to answer without a LOT of speculation.
I think I was mainly wonder how or if Challenger could have been used in place of Atlantis or Discovery at ISS if another orbiter had been used for 51-L and one of those was lost instead. Could a fleet of Challenger, Atlantis and Endeavour have serviced ISS as it is currently built? -
#3264 by Jim on 14 Aug, 2014 21:04
-
I think I was mainly wonder how or if Challenger could have been used in place of Atlantis or Discovery at ISS if another orbiter had been used for 51-L and one of those was lost instead. Could a fleet of Challenger, Atlantis and Endeavour have serviced ISS as it is currently built?
Yes, there would have been no impact to the ISS. Challenger was going to carry the Centaur G'. -
#3265 by Jim on 14 Aug, 2014 21:05
-
I have read that Challenger could carry 2500 lbs more that Columbia, but still far less than the rest of the fleet.
It was more that that, It was only 100's less that the other orbiters. 116 & 118 were light payloads.
And why was Columbia originally planned to fly STS-118 to ISS? A lighter payload? -
#3266 by DaveS on 21 Aug, 2014 18:38
-
Does anyone know the dimensions of the SSOR and EVA antennas in the PLB?
-
#3267 by penguin44 on 02 Sep, 2014 23:03
-
Hypothetical question, if a shuttle was carrying spacehab/lab and there was a leak in the cabin, could hab/lab be sealed off for the crew to use and remain inside as a safety shelter?
-
#3268 by Specifically-Impulsive on 02 Sep, 2014 23:16
-
<terse mode>
No.
</terse mode>
A lot of work was done during STS-80 to cover contingency EVAs with the airlock hatch jammed. Much analysis was done on "side hatch EVA" but since the cabin avionics needed air cooling, IIRC it would have required a total and non recoverable powerdown to take the cabin to vacuum. -
#3269 by Jim on 03 Sep, 2014 13:21
-
The lab/hab is not independent of the crew cabin live support systems. The basic Spacehab modules only had heat removal, all the remaining items: H2O removal, CO2 removal, O2 makeup, pressure control, etc were done by the crew cabin. Spacehab RDM added H2O removal and maybe C02. Spacelab had CO2 & H2O removal and pressure control.
-
#3270 by thomasafb on 27 Sep, 2014 20:35
-
Something totally different and ancient shuttle history.
The attached Image is taken from the infamous 1979 Bond movie "Moonraker". It shows an Orbiter getting lifted around the VAB. It looks rather unfinished to me with no visible markings, no TPS and missing flipper doors on the wings.
Columbia arrived at KSC on Mar. 24 and Enterprise on Apr. 10, 1979. Given the fact that Columbia at that time was having TPS issues and Enterprise was mounted to an ET and SRBs in April to be rolled out to the pad on May 1, 1979, it could only have been Enterprise to stand in for a Moonraker in the film (which was released on June 26, 1979). Can somebody confirm that and/or maybe shed some light on why the flipper doors were removed prior to stacking?
-
#3271 by Jim on 27 Sep, 2014 20:42
-
Something totally different and ancient shuttle history.
The attached Image is taken from the infamous 1979 Bond movie "Moonraker". It shows an Orbiter getting lifted around the VAB. It looks rather unfinished to me with no visible markings, no TPS and missing flipper doors on the wings.
Because it was a model. No real shuttles were used. -
#3272 by thomasafb on 27 Sep, 2014 20:58
-
Because it was a model. No real shuttles were used.
Ic! Must have read too much into the Wikipedia remark that they actually shot some scenes inside the VAB. Thanks for straighting me out. -
#3273 by Jim on 27 Sep, 2014 20:59
-
They might have facility shots that were real
-
#3274 by DaveS on 27 Sep, 2014 21:07
-
And that's not the VAB either. I'm pretty familiar with the layout of the VAB High Bays as well as the transfer aisle and that screengrab doesn't match any of them. Also the orbiter sling is wrong. It only has the two side beams and is missing the aft sling structure which would be used to rotate the orbiter to and from vertical.
-
#3275 by Hog on 28 Sep, 2014 20:35
-
And that's not the VAB either. I'm pretty familiar with the layout of the VAB High Bays as well as the transfer aisle and that screengrab doesn't match any of them. Also the orbiter sling is wrong. It only has the two side beams and is missing the aft sling structure which would be used to rotate the orbiter to and from vertical.
Being rotated from from vertical would be a rarity wouldnt it? Any instances where that occured operationally? -
#3276 by DaveS on 28 Sep, 2014 21:30
-
Orbiter rotations occurred in the VAB transfer aisle. They still need the aft sling structure to rotate the orbiter to vertical.
Destacks occurred several times even post-Columbia. -
#3277 by shuttlelegs on 29 Sep, 2014 00:28
-
I believe the model is a 1/4 scale of the shuttle used in ground vibration tests at Downey in building 288.
You can just see the SRBs on the left hand side of the picture. Enterprise is seen behind Bond in the next scene in the movie. It has Moonraker on a banner on its side . This must have been in the VAB. -
#3278 by DaveS on 30 Sep, 2014 20:35
-
Does anyone know the weight of the various parachutes of the SRB Recovery System (Pilot, drogue and mains)?
-
#3279 by Hog on 30 Sep, 2014 22:20
-
Does anyone know the weight of the various parachutes of the SRB Recovery System (Pilot, drogue and mains)?
2180lbs. or 990kg for the mains
From Wiki
Each of the 136 ft (41 m) diameter, 20-degree conical ribbon parachutes have a design load of approximately 195,000 lb (88,000 kg) and each weighs approximately 2,180 lb (990 kg). These parachutes are the largest that have ever been used — both in deployed size and load weight
But this is NASA data:
For Steel cased SRB's launched from KSC
Orignal 1981 Pilot Chute (11.5ft diam.)
design load 14,500lbs
pack weight was 41.5lbs
Original 1981 Drogue Chute (54ft dia.)
design load 270,000lbs
pack Weight was 1250 lbs
Original 1981 Main Pack Chute, (small diameter of 115ft)
design load 173,300lbs
Pack Weight Each(1 of 3) was 1708 lbs
1985 Main Chutes (large diameter 136ft)
design load 150,000lbs
pack weight was 2160lbs
Filament Wound Case (FWC) SRB's for use from SLC-6
1981 Pilot chute (10ftdia.)
Design Load 32,500 lb
Pack Weight 72 lb
1981 design Drogue Chute (52.5ft dia.)
Design Load 375,000 lbs
Pack Weight 1250lbs
Both the FWC pilot and FWC drogue parachutes were overtested and
ready for operatiomd use. The drogue overtest produced a maximum load
of 471,500 lb at a deployment dynamic pressure of 687 psf.
At the same time the 136 ft main parachute was being developed, NASA
was preparing to fly the Space Shuttle from Vandenberg Air Force Base
(VAFB) for polar orbit missions. Filament wound case (FWC) SRBs were
developed for the higher energy requirements of these missions. Although
the FWC boosters were lighter, they had a more aft center gravity location.
The net effect was to cause more nozzle-first reentry attitudes and higher
reentry dynamic pressures at parachute deployment altitudes. This more
severe environment required the development of new pilot and drogue
parachute designs.